initial commit of ebook 33859HEADmain

24 files changed, 40078 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/33859-0.txt b/33859-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..88f5bab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,10012 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by John Gerard
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer
+
+Author: John Gerard
+
+Release Date: October 15, 2010 [EBook #33859]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER
+
+     The Lord St. Alban would say to some philosophers--"Gentlemen,
+     nature is a labyrinth, in which the very haste you move with, will
+     make you lose your way."
+                                     BACON, _Apophthegms_.
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE
+AND THE NEWEST
+ANSWER
+
+BY
+JOHN GERARD, S.J., F.L.S.
+
+_FOURTH EDITION_
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON,
+NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
+
+1907
+
+
+
+
+ROEHAMPTON:
+
+PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+The enemies of Science are not the philistines alone--if any still
+remain--who would muzzle or stifle her. More numerous and dangerous are
+those--professedly of her own household--who ascribe to her pretensions
+of which she herself knows nothing, and strive to make her responsible
+for a philosophy entirely beyond her scope. With this object efforts are
+assiduously made to popularize the idea that nothing in heaven or earth
+is beyond her ken, and that she has rendered all such beliefs impossible
+as alone can satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity. At the same time
+the very brilliance of her achievements is apt to dazzle our eyes,
+blinding them to the extremely narrow limits of the field in which she
+can operate, and making us rush to the conclusion that she has solved
+the riddle which from the beginning of time Nature has offered to every
+thinking mind,--or at least that what her search-light cannot illumine
+must for ever remain unknowable.
+
+How far such assumptions are rational, it is the object of the present
+enquiry to examine by means of the evidence furnished by Science herself
+in her own regard.
+
+I have to thank Mr. W. E. Darwin for permission to use the illustration
+of feathers of the Argus Pheasant from his illustrious father's _Descent
+of Man_, and for the loan of blocks for the purpose. Through the
+courtesy of Messrs. Macmillan I am allowed to copy a portion of the
+plate in the late Professor Huxley's _Lectures on Evolution_,
+illustrating his pedigree of the Horse. If I forbear to mention others
+who have kindly supplied me with information, it is only lest it might
+be supposed that they are anywise responsible for the use I have made of
+it. The design on the cover of the present volume I owe to my friend Mr.
+Paul Woodroffe.
+
+J. G.
+
+_March_ 10, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
+
+
+In this edition, which has been thoroughly revised throughout, a few
+corrections have had to be made, especially in the Index, and in one or
+two instances alterations or additions have appeared advisable for the
+sake of clearness or accuracy of expression. Nothing has, however, as
+yet been brought to the author's notice which affects any substantial
+point in what he has written.
+
+_July_ 28, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
+
+
+This edition has again been thoroughly revised, and some new matter
+appended which bears on various points raised in the original volume,
+especially the establishment of the important group of the
+_Cycado-filices_, as affecting the succession of plant life on the
+earth, and recent evidence concerning the pedigree of the horse.
+
+_December_ 21, 1906.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+                                                                PAGES
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+Certainty that there was a Beginning of the World--What
+was there before?--The Great Problem, to be
+answered by Reason and Science                                    1-3
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+Principles of Reasoning--Scope and method of Science              4-7
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+EVOLUTION
+
+Term variously used for a Process and a Principle. We
+commence with the latter                                          8-9
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+Evolution as a Philosophy--Main features of the
+system                                                          10-14
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+Erroneous use of the term frequent: its scientific use          15-19
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+A combination of two other "Laws," viz.--The indestructibility
+of Matter, and the Conservation of
+Energy--But there is also Dissipation of Energy--Consequences
+inferred from this as to the Duration
+of the Universe                                                 20-28
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+The "Law of Continuity"--Alleged breaches--Seven
+evolutionary stages deduced to be scientifically
+unexplained, or even inexplicable                               29-34
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+Constitution and Properties of Matter inconsistent with
+Haeckel's evolutionary system--Also the Laws of
+Motion--Radium and its revelations                              35-44
+
+CHAPTER IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+Evolution here considered as a process--In its larger
+sense, postulates spontaneous generation--which,
+however, Science disallows--Protoplasm and Crystallization      45-66
+
+CHAPTER X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+Origin of simple sensation and consciousness even less
+explicable than that of life--Gulf between man
+and the lower animals--Language exclusively
+human--The significance of Free-will can be impugned
+only by the absurdity of denying its existence                  67-85
+
+CHAPTER XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+The order of the _Cosmos_ requires a Cause--No cause
+known to us can produce such a result except Intelligence--Hence
+we infer Purpose or Design and
+are led to Theism--Scientific evidence as to this,
+"the Grand Question"                                           86-109
+
+CHAPTER XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+What "Chance" means--It is the sole alternative to
+Purpose or Design--Arguments against Purposive
+Creation--The Existence of Pain--The Mysteries
+of Generation                                                 110-125
+
+CHAPTER XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+The Monistic Philosophy--Its utter lack of a scientific
+basis--Contradicted by the ideas of morality and
+truth--Not really adopted by Monists themselves               126-139
+
+CHAPTER XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+"Evolution" now to be considered in its most restricted
+signification--Organic Evolution, or "Transformism,"
+not identical with Darwinism--The
+nature of the questions before us                             140-148
+
+CHAPTER XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+Though no essential part of our enquiry, Darwinism
+must be studied on account of importance ascribed
+to it--Baseless claims on its behalf--True character
+of the system--Natural Selection and its mode of
+action--Phenomena which seem to favour Darwinism--Difficulties
+on the other side--Limits of
+Variation--Specific stability--Adverse probabilities--Natural
+selection can produce nothing--Transitional
+developments useless or harmful--Artistic
+ornaments unexplained--Flaws in argument--Organic
+progress--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--Scientific
+opinion as to Darwinism                                       149-203
+
+CHAPTER XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+Palæontology furnishes the only sound basis for argument--The
+nature of the evidence required--The
+history of Life as known to us is inconsistent
+with evolutionary theories--Haeckel's "ante-periods"--Conclusion
+to which facts point                                          204-238
+
+CHAPTER XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+Arguments on behalf of Evolution--The genealogy of
+the Horse--Haeckel's Pedigree of Man--Darwin's
+plea of imperfection of the geological record--No
+evolutionary process is yet demonstrated; Still less
+has anything been done to establish Evolution as a
+creative force                                                239-269
+
+CHAPTER XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+Reason leads to conclusions which physical science cannot
+reach--The recognition of a First Cause beyond the
+Sensible Universe an intellectual necessity--Knowledge
+of this cause attainable by reason--Conclusion                270-280
+
+APPENDICES
+
+A. Recent Scientific Verdicts concerning Darwinism and
+Transformism                                                      281
+
+B. Development of Plant life--the _Cycadofilices_                 284
+
+C. The Course of Evolution                                        285
+
+D. The pedigree of the Horse: further evidence                    286
+
+INDEX                                                             289
+
+FOOTNOTES
+
+
+
+
+I
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+
+That the world as we know it had a beginning is a truth which there is
+no denying. Not only have philosophers always argued that it must be so:
+the researches of physical science assure us that it has been so in
+fact. Astronomy, says Professor Huxley,[1] "leads us to contemplate
+phenomena the very nature of which demonstrates that they must have had
+a beginning." The hypothesis that phenomena of Nature similar to those
+exhibited by the present world have always existed, the same authority
+assures us,[2] "is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as we
+have, which is of so plain and so simple a character that it is
+impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it forces
+upon us." This conclusion, physicists tell us, is inevitable when we
+study the laws by which the operations of Nature are governed, and as
+Professor Balfour Stewart writes,[3] we thus become "absolutely certain"
+that these operations cannot have existed for ever, and that a time
+will come when they must cease. In like manner, a recent and competent
+witness to the conclusions of contemporary Science, lays down,[4] as one
+of the truths which her latest discoveries compel us to accept, that the
+world is not eternal, that the earth is cooling from a state of heat
+rendering life impossible, to one of physical exhaustion equally fatal
+to it. Accordingly "Life must have had a beginning and must come to an
+end,"--and our whole Solar System (he adds) must similarly have had a
+commencement, at a period not infinitely remote.
+
+But, if the world had a beginning, what was there before it began?
+Something there must have been, and something which had the power of
+producing it. Had there ever been nothing, there could never have been
+anything, for, _Ex nihilo nihil fit_. That nothing should turn into
+something is an idea which the mind refuses to entertain. Nor is the
+case any better even if we suppose that matter had no beginning, that it
+has existed for ever as we know it now, and that at first there was
+nothing else. For if so, whence have all these things arisen which,
+according to all observation and experiment, matter cannot produce, as,
+organic life, sensitive life, consciousness, reason, moral goodness? Had
+matter been always what it now is, and had there been no source beyond
+matter whence the power of producing all these things could be derived,
+they could never have been produced at all, or else they would have
+come into being without a cause. It would be like a milestone growing
+into an apple-tree, or a mountain spontaneously giving birth to a mouse.
+
+We are therefore compelled by common-sense to ask when we consider
+Nature, What is the force or power at the back of her, which first set
+her going, and whence she draws the capability of performing the
+operations which we find her performing every day; that force or power
+which must be the ultimate origin of everything that is in the world?
+This is the great fundamental problem which the student of Nature has to
+face, and beside it all others fade into insignificance. It is with this
+that we are now engaged. We have to ask how our reason bids us answer
+it, and the first question which arises naturally is, What light is
+thrown on the subject by modern Science, of whose achievements we are
+all so justly proud?
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+
+In studying a question such as this, we must commence by being
+determined, on the one hand to accept nothing as true but what our
+reason warrants us in believing, and on the other hand to follow the
+guidance of reason as far as, rightly used, it will lead us. The
+principle formulated[5] by Professor Huxley, as the foundation-stone of
+what he termed "Agnosticism," is that which must needs be adopted, and
+as a matter of fact has ever been adopted, by rational men.
+
+     Positively--in matters of the intellect follow your reason as far
+     as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
+     negatively--in matters of the intellect do not pretend that
+     conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
+
+But to justify the confidence which we thus repose in it we must
+obviously be careful to use our reason aright, and not to attribute to
+it any conclusions which it does not really sanction. It is this right
+use of reason that is specially claimed for modern "Science,"[6] which,
+as we are again assured by Professor Huxley, is only another name for
+sound reasoning--"_Science_," he declares,[7] "_is, I believe, nothing
+but trained and organized common-sense_.[8] ... The man of science, in
+fact, simply uses with scrupulous exactness, the methods which we all,
+habitually and at every moment, use carelessly."
+
+There can be no sort of question that so long as men of science really
+act thus, and confine themselves to the treatment of matters in regard
+of which they can claim special knowledge, common sense bids us listen
+to them with respect, and even with submission. But the same common
+sense requires that we should satisfy ourselves that they truly deserve
+the character assigned them, and pretend to no knowledge on the score of
+Science but what their scientific methods are competent to acquire. When
+they step beyond this their own proper domain, whatever weight may be
+given to their opinions upon other grounds, they cease to speak in the
+name of Science.
+
+What then, we must ask, is the province of Science, and what are her
+methods?
+
+"Science," always understanding by the term physical or experimental
+Science, deals with the universe so far as it is known to us through our
+senses. The universe known thus we call "Nature," and the whole stock in
+trade of Science is the examination and verification of natural
+phenomena, with such inferences therefrom as ascertained facts
+legitimately suggest. From careful and trustworthy observation she can
+learn what are called the "Laws of Nature," that is to say the manner in
+which the various elements and forces of the universe are found
+constantly to act, in given circumstances; she can, to some extent,
+discover the chain of causes and effects, or more properly of
+conditions and consequences, through which natural operations are
+carried on. She can even construct hypotheses as to what she cannot
+directly observe, namely, the nature of substances and forces; and such
+hypotheses are justified in proportion as they are found to tally with
+facts. If constantly thus justified, they are styled theories, and come
+to be practically assumed as established truths. But it must ever be
+remembered that Science can take no step in advance which is not based
+on fact, and that when facts are not forthcoming for its support an
+hypothesis or a theory has no scientific value.
+
+Bearing this in mind, we will proceed to enquire what Science has to
+tell us regarding the origin of the world, and the manner in which it
+has come to be what it is.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+"EVOLUTION"
+
+
+We are constantly assured that Science compels us to believe in
+"Evolution," and that in this doctrine is to be found the explanation of
+the universe whereof we are in quest. We must however in the first place
+make sure that we understand what "Evolution" means, and if we look into
+the question, it speedily appears that the term is very differently
+understood by those who use it.
+
+Some who style themselves "Evolutionists" mean only that, as a matter of
+established fact, the organic world, the world of life, whether animal
+or vegetable, has been brought to its present condition by _genetic_
+development of one species from another, in the natural course of
+descent and through the operation of natural laws; and that as we see
+plants and animals of the same kind propagated one from another at the
+present day, so in the course of long ages the lower and simpler forms
+of life have given birth to the higher and more complex.
+
+Others again do not limit this process to organic creatures, and believe
+that from first to last, the whole world, inorganic and organic alike,
+has resulted from the action of forces such as those with which Science
+deals; and that life has thus arisen in purely natural course out of
+non-living matter, the universe in its original condition having been
+constituted as a vast machine which was bound to produce all that has
+since arisen.
+
+In either of the above senses--of which the second obviously includes
+the first,--"Evolution" is understood as no more than a _process_ which
+is said to have occurred. But there is a more extreme school which takes
+"Evolution" for much more, namely for a power, principle, or "law,"
+which both governs and accounts for everything, and requires no further
+cause beyond itself.
+
+If this paramount "Law of Evolution" can be established, there is
+clearly an end of our enquiry, for here is the ultimate explanation of
+everything which we are seeking. But what has Science to say concerning
+it?
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+
+That there is a self-existing and self-sufficing "Law of Evolution" to
+which everything in the world must be ascribed, is the doctrine of those
+Evolutionists who are most active in propagating their creed and who
+most loudly proclaim that it alone is scientific. The great leader and
+prophet of this school, Professor Ernst Haeckel, assures us[9] that he
+gives expression,
+
+     to that rational view of the world which is being forced upon us
+     with such logical rigour by the modern advancements in our
+     knowledge of nature as a unity, a view in reality held by almost
+     all unprejudiced and thinking men of science, although but few have
+     the courage (or the need) to declare it openly.
+
+The plain and rational conclusion thus exhibited is, he tells us,[10]
+the special glory of modern research.
+
+     It is true [he writes] that there were philosophers who spoke of
+     the evolution of things a thousand years ago; but the recognition
+     that such a law dominates the entire universe, and that the world
+     is nothing else than an eternal "evolution of substance," is a
+     fruit of the nineteenth century.
+
+So far as concerns the world which we actually inhabit, its first
+beginning, we must, he tells us, suppose[11] to have been a vast nebula
+of infinitely attenuated and light material, rotating upon its own
+axis.[12]
+
+     Given this first beginning of the cosmogonic movement, it is easy,
+     on mathematical principles, to deduce and mathematically establish
+     the further phenomena of the foundation of the cosmic bodies, the
+     separation of the planets, and so forth.
+
+Nor are we to suppose that the beginning of this particular process was
+in any true sense a beginning at all. Evolutionary philosophy such as
+Professor Haeckel's, necessarily teaches that beginnings and endings
+succeed one another everlastingly, one world-system arising phoenix-like
+from the ashes of another.
+
+     The nebular hypothesis above described has recently [we are
+     told][13] been strongly confirmed and enlarged by the theory that
+     this cosmogonic process did not simply take place once, but is
+     periodically repeated. While new cosmic bodies arise and develop,
+     out of rotating masses of nebula in some parts of the universe, in
+     other parts old, extinct, frigid suns come into collision, and are
+     once more reduced by the heat generated to the condition of nebulæ.
+
+It appears, in fact, to be assumed that this cyclic process has been
+actually demonstrated, for we are told[14] that astronomy reveals, in
+the endless depths of space, "Millions of circling spheres, larger than
+our earth, and, like it, in an eternal rhythm of life and death."
+
+Moreover, "life" is here to be understood literally, for it is a
+cardinal article of such evolutionary belief that equally with the
+foundation of cosmic bodies and the separation of planets, the
+production of organic life, of plants and animals, has been wrought by
+forces which the material universe contains within itself,[15] and
+accordingly,[16]
+
+     We now definitely know that the organic world on our earth has been
+     continuously developed "in accordance with eternal iron laws." ...
+     An unbroken series of natural events, following an orderly course
+     of evolution according to fixed laws, now leads the reflecting
+     human spirit through long aeons from a primeval chaos to the
+     present order of the cosmos.
+
+Finally, at the back of all these processes, we are to recognize the one
+ultimate reality, the universe itself, which originates and undergoes
+all these evolutions. In its regard Professor Haeckel tells us[17] that,
+
+     The universe, or cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. Its
+     substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy) fills
+     infinite space and is in eternal motion. This motion runs on
+     through infinite time as an unbroken development, with a periodic
+     change from life to death, from evolution to devolution....
+
+And again:[18]
+
+     The two fundamental forms of substances, ponderable matter and
+     ether, are not dead and moved only by extrinsic force, but they are
+     endowed also with sensation and will (though naturally of the
+     lowest grade); they experience an inclination for condensation, a
+     dislike of strain; they strive after the one and struggle against
+     the other.
+
+Moreover,
+
+     Movement[19] is as innate and original a property of substances as
+     is sensation.
+
+Such is the raw material whose metamorphoses produce, or rather
+constitute, all possible worlds, while paramount over every thing
+dominates the "Law of Substance," under which title Professor Haeckel
+unites the scientific principles of the indestructibility of matter,
+and the conservation of energy. Thus is the conclusion reached,[20]
+
+     Towering above all the achievements and discoveries of the century
+     we have the great comprehensive "law of substance," the fundamental
+     law of the constancy of matter and force. The fact that substance
+     is everywhere subject to eternal movement and transformation gives
+     it the character also of the universal law of evolution. As this
+     supreme law has been firmly established and all others are
+     subordinate to it, we arrive at a conviction of the universal unity
+     of nature and the eternal validity of its laws.
+
+Accordingly we are to conclude with Goethe that all proceeds by iron law
+to the fulfilling of inevitable destiny; or as an ardent disciple
+proclaims, who undertakes to expound the new creed to the people,[21]
+
+     We rest in sure and certain hope that no force and no combination
+     of forces can stop the process of Evolution, which from a speck of
+     jelly has developed such living forms as Charles Darwin and Herbert
+     Spencer, and which has produced the beauty of the earth and the
+     heavens from formless ether.
+
+This outline of the Evolutionary system in its widest and fullest sense
+will enable us to judge upon what grounds it can claim the sanction of
+Science. Various points here present themselves for consideration, which
+demand separate treatment.
+
+
+
+
+V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+
+As we have seen, the doctrine of Evolution is presented by its advocates
+as being based upon the existence of a "Law of Evolution," or "Law of
+Substance," which both brings about evolutionary processes, and
+certifies us of their occurrence, so that we may appeal to it as an
+authority for our belief in the facts of evolution themselves. Thus as
+Professor Milnes Marshall told the British Association,[22]
+
+     The doctrine of descent, or of evolution, teaches us that as
+     individual animals arise, not spontaneously, but by direct descent
+     from pre-existing animals, so also is it with species, with
+     families, and with larger groups of animals, and so also has it
+     been for all time.
+
+It is not said, be it observed, that the establishment of such facts
+teaches us the doctrine of evolution, but that the doctrine assures us
+of the facts; and the utterances constantly met with, of which the above
+is a fair sample, have no signification if they do not mean this. In
+the same way Professor Haeckel declares[23] that his fundamental cosmic
+law "establishes" the eternal persistence of matter and force, and their
+unvarying constancy throughout the entire universe, becoming thus "the
+pole-star that guides our Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth to a
+solution of the world problem," and the key to this supreme problem, he
+further tells us,[24] is found in one magic word--Evolution.
+
+It would certainly appear from all this, that by "Evolution" we are to
+understand some sort of entity at the back of the world, with power at
+its disposal capable of effecting all its operations,--something in fact
+remarkably like the First Cause of which we are in search,--and that by
+its "Laws" are signified some definite forces, the practical action of
+which has been ascertained by us, so that we can foretell the course of
+events under them, as we can that of the planets or the tides under the
+influence of gravitation.
+
+But is it scientific, or even intelligible, to use words thus, and to
+assign any such significance to such terms as "Law of Evolution," "Law
+of Substance," or any other "Law of Nature"? We are repeatedly warned to
+the contrary by so high an authority as Professor Huxley. Once, for
+instance, he discovered in a sermon of Canon Liddon's this "fallacious
+employment of the name of a scientific conception," for which it was
+however added, the preacher "could find only too many scientific
+precedents."[25] This fallacious use of terms, which nowise differs from
+that under consideration, Professor Huxley thus denounces:
+
+     It is the use of the word "law" as if it denoted a thing--as if a
+     "law of nature," as science understands it, were a being endowed
+     with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by
+     that law are brought about.... All I wish to remark is that such a
+     conception of the nature of "laws" has nothing to do with modern
+     science.... A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the
+     product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
+     under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind
+     than colour has. The law of gravitation is a statement of the
+     manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to
+     move, do, in fact, move towards one another.... The tenacity of the
+     wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of
+     being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which
+     we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our
+     anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting
+     psychological fact: and would be unintelligible if the tendency of
+     the human mind towards realism were less strong.
+
+A law, accordingly, "is not a cause but a fact,"[26] and we must learn
+laws from facts, not facts from laws. It is indeed evident on a
+moment's thought, that to speak of the Law of Evolution as causing
+things to be evolved, is like saying that the law of growth makes things
+grow. Till we know what happens, there is nothing of which Science can
+take account.
+
+     True scientific teaching, I cannot too often repeat [says Professor
+     Tait][27] requires that the facts, and their _necessary_
+     consequences alone, should be stated, as simply as possible.
+
+In like manner Professor Huxley,[28] undertaking to vindicate full
+scientific value for his own favourite Biology, does so by pointing out
+that biological methods are similar to those of every other branch of
+Science, since they begin with the observation of facts, and from this
+proceed to various applications of the knowledge so acquired. And
+Professor Haeckel himself tells us regarding his own mode of
+procedure:[29]
+
+     The means and methods we have chosen for attaining the solution of
+     the great enigma do not differ, on the whole, from those of all
+     purely scientific investigation: firstly, experience; secondly,
+     inference.
+
+Therefore, although the phrases we have already heard from him, are
+found when scrutinized to be only phrases, which explain nothing, it
+may be supposed that he elsewhere produces such proofs of his doctrine
+as will place it on a scientific basis. For these we will now seek.
+
+
+
+
+VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+
+We have just been told by Professor Haeckel, that the means and methods
+which he has chosen for the establishment of his philosophy are, on the
+whole, identical with those employed in all purely scientific
+investigation, namely, first experience, and secondly inference.
+
+But here a grave difficulty at once presents itself. How, either by
+experience or by inference, can we learn anything about the
+commencements of the universe, as to which we have heard so much? How
+the first bodies, whether organic or inorganic, actually arose, neither
+philosophy nor science can definitely say, for the latter was not there
+to see, and the former has no facts on which to argue.[30] But if
+neither by observation, nor by clear inference, can the account that has
+been given be substantiated, that account cannot pretend to be
+scientific, for it rests not upon knowledge but upon speculation,--and
+as Professor Tait warns us,[31] "That of which there is no knowledge is
+not yet part of Science."
+
+This plain consideration seems to account for a fact which is
+undoubtedly highly significant. Professor Huxley had certainly no
+prejudices against evolutionary systems, could they but be
+satisfactorily established. He knew all that Professor Haeckel has urged
+on behalf of his own theory, and showed how much he was in sympathy with
+it by naming after his friend the ill-starred _Bathybius Haeckelii_, the
+deep-sea slime which was at first supposed to bridge the gulf between
+the organic and the inorganic worlds, and to be living stuff in process
+of spontaneous manufacture. Nothing, in fact, as he himself admitted, in
+his controversy with Dr. Bastian, could have suited him better than a
+demonstration that Nature possesses all the powers necessary for her own
+processes, and that the explanation of all is within the scope of
+Science. But, at the same time, he reverenced scientific truth beyond
+anything else, and he was keenly sensible of the danger attending the
+use of hypothetical explanations, leading to conclusions which cannot be
+experimentally tested, which danger he carefully shunned.[32]
+Accordingly, not only did he never lend his countenance to what
+Professor Haeckel represents as the inevitable conclusions of Science,
+but he even plainly intimated that those who advanced such views were
+going much farther than Science warrants. The doctrine of Evolution, he
+declared,[33] is not only attacked on false grounds by its enemies, but
+is made by some of its friends to cover so much which is disputable, as
+to force him in self-defence to make his own position clear in its
+regard. And the first point of his explanation is to repudiate the idea
+that we have any such knowledge as Professor Haeckel assumes. "I have
+nothing to say," he writes, "to any 'Philosophy of Evolution.'"
+
+Being thus necessarily destitute of support either directly from
+observation or by inference from observed facts, it would seem that only
+in one way can Professor Haeckel's system of cosmogony, or
+world-production, obtain any support from Science. If amongst the
+operations now in progress in the universe, is to be found evidence of
+an exhaustless and self-renewing energy, a mainspring capable of keeping
+the machine going everlastingly, then undoubtedly there will be an
+explanation forthcoming, which, whatever difficulties may still remain
+on other grounds, will at least furnish a complete mechanical account of
+things within the ken of Science. May we not suppose that this is what
+is claimed as being supplied by the "Law of Substance," which is
+represented as the cornerstone of the whole edifice, the supreme triumph
+of scientific discovery, and, in fine, "the universal law of
+evolution"? Let us see how far such a notion can be styled scientific.
+
+As has been shown, a "Law" is nothing but a statement that a certain
+kind of fact is found to occur in certain circumstances. Professor
+Haeckel has told us that the "Law of Substance" is a blend of two such
+statements, namely, "the Law of the persistency or indestructibility of
+matter," which signifies that in no instance within our knowledge is any
+particle of matter destroyed, and "the Law of the persistence of force,
+or conservation of energy," which signifies that the sum of force, at
+work in the world, and producing all phenomena, is similarly found to be
+unalterable.[34]
+
+It must here first be observed that the term "Conservation of Energy,"
+is more correct and intelligible than "Conservation of Force"; by
+"Energy" being understood the power of doing "work," that is to say, of
+overcoming resistance.[35]
+
+It is in this form alone that Force becomes subject to observation and
+can be measured by Science, and the Law of Conservation which
+observation reveals is thus stated: The sum of all the various energies
+in the universe is a constant quantity, which can be neither increased
+nor diminished, though it may be changed from one form to another;[36]
+such forms being motion, heat, chemical action, electricity, magnetism.
+
+But another point is of far greater importance. The mode in which
+Professor Haeckel states this fundamental Law is altogether deceptive.
+He tells his readers only half the truth, and when the other half is
+told, not only is his whole doctrine found to receive no support from
+the Laws of Energy, but it is these very Laws which appear most
+incompatible with it.
+
+For, along with the Law of the Conservation, there is another, of the
+Dissipation of Energy. It is perfectly true, as Professor Haeckel often
+repeats, that the sum of Energy existing in the universe remains ever
+the same: but it is no less certain, as he unfortunately fails to remind
+his readers, that the stock of Energy _available for the work of the
+universe_ is growing less every day. Though none is ever destroyed, much
+is constantly _lost_, being dissipated, or radiated into space, in the
+form of heat which can never be recaptured or translated into any form
+which can be of any practical avail. "It is lost for ever as far as we
+are concerned."[37]
+
+From what we have heard concerning the Law of Substance it might
+naturally be supposed that it certified us of the continued existence of
+the power required to carry on the operations of Nature, and that,
+accordingly, reason bids us to suppose these operations to be
+everlasting. But this neglected element of the reckoning, or _Entropy_
+as it is styled, leads scientific men to an entirely different estimate.
+Thus Professor Balfour Stewart writes:[38]
+
+     Although, therefore, in a strictly mechanical sense, there is a
+     conservation of energy, yet, as regards usefulness or fitness for
+     living beings, the energy of the universe is in process of
+     deterioration. Universally diffused heat forms what we may call the
+     great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger year
+     by year.
+
+     We have [he continues] regarded the universe, not as a collection
+     of matter, but rather as an energetic agent--in fact, as a lamp.
+     Now it has been well pointed out by Thomson,[39] that looked at in
+     this light, the universe is a system that had a beginning and must
+     have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we
+     could view the universe as a candle not lit, then it is perhaps
+     conceivable to regard it as having been always in existence; but if
+     we regard it rather as a candle that has been lit, we become
+     absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity,
+     and that a time will come when it will cease to burn. We are led to
+     look to a beginning in which the particles of matter were in a
+     diffuse chaotic state, but endowed with the power of gravitation,
+     and we are led to look to an end in which the whole universe will
+     be one equally heated inert mass, from which everything like life
+     or motion or beauty will have utterly gone away.
+
+It is doubtless true that attempts have been made to show that this
+conclusion is not final, and that there may be resources whereby Nature
+is able to recoup herself, and to draw upon some bank unknown to us for
+her missing store. As we have seen, Professor Haeckel simply takes for
+granted that some such means of recuperation exist and operate, and he
+is not wholly without countenance from others. Thus, no less an
+authority than Sir William Crookes addressing the Chemical Society as
+its president, thus expressed himself:[40]
+
+     If we may hazard any conjectures ... we may I think premise that
+     the heat radiations propagated outwards, ... by some process of
+     nature unknown to us, are transformed at the confines of the
+     universe into the primary--the essential--motion of chemical atoms,
+     which the instant they are formed, gravitate inwards, and thus
+     restore to the universe the energy which would be lost to it
+     through radiant heat. Hence Sir William Thomson's startling
+     prediction falls to the ground.
+
+But it need not be pointed out that if an advocate so eminent as Sir
+William Crookes is reduced to pleas like this on its behalf, the case
+for Renovation of Energy must be singularly destitute of anything
+resembling scientific support. Suppositions which are avowedly hazarded
+as conjectures, and which must appeal to processes of Nature of which we
+know nothing, whatever authorship they may boast, have nothing to do
+with Science, and possess no sort of value for our purpose.[41] It must
+of course be allowed that we may still be utterly in the dark as to the
+whole of this question, and that further discoveries may one day
+completely upset all our present notions. But we are concerned with the
+evidence which Science has now before her, and with the assertion so
+confidently advanced that this makes the Law of ceaseless Evolution an
+indisputable truth. We find, on the contrary, that this Law runs
+directly counter to the facts as they are at present known to us, and to
+the conclusions drawn from them by the most authoritative
+representatives of science.
+
+Nor is it only our own globe and solar system that appear to be thus
+bound towards an inevitable doom. The eternal rhythm of life and death,
+of which we have been told as pervading the endless depths of space,
+has no better title to scientific sanction. Like the minor province
+which we inhabit, the whole universe, we are assured,--so far as we have
+means of calculating,--must ultimately arrive at a condition of eternal
+stagnation,--its component parts being drawn close together by their
+mutual attractions,--so that motion ceases; while the heat replacing it
+being equally diffused, becomes as incapable of doing work as water
+between two pools on the same level is of turning a mill. As the writer
+lately quoted sums up the matter:[42]
+
+     Slow as the process of condensation is, it is not endless. In time
+     all the meteoric dust will be collected into stars or planets; and
+     in time the law of dissipation of energy will bring all these
+     bodies to a uniform temperature. So at last the movements due to
+     the original unequal distribution of matter will cease, and the
+     life of the universe will come to an end. We know of no process of
+     rejuvenescence, by means of which dissipation of energy and the
+     force of gravitation might be counteracted. Several attempts have
+     been made to refute the theory of the dissipation of energy, but
+     all have failed.
+
+This, however, is but the first of many difficulties which must be
+disposed of ere the account of the world's genesis which we are
+considering can pretend to our acceptance on the ground that reason and
+science proclaim its truth.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+
+The doctrine that the universe is an automatic machine,--self-originated
+and self-sustained--undoubtedly rests upon a principle formally
+recognized by some evolutionists, as the "Law of Continuity," and taken
+for granted by many who do not put it into words. This principle
+is,--that everything must always have happened according to the same
+laws of Nature which operate now; that there can never have been a
+"miracle," understanding by this term whatever is beyond the scope of
+natural forces; and that, accordingly, the whole of the world's
+history,--one stage as much as another,--falls within the province of
+Science. By no one has this position been more clearly stated than by
+the late Professor Romanes.
+
+     All minds [he tells us][43] with any instincts of science in their
+     composition have grown to distrust, on merely antecedent grounds,
+     any explanation which embodies a miraculous element. Such minds
+     have grown to regard all these explanations as mere expressions of
+     our own ignorance of natural causation; or, in other words, they
+     have come to regard it as an _à priori_ truth that nature is always
+     uniform in respect of method or causation; that the reign of law is
+     universal; the principle of continuity ubiquitous.
+
+He goes on to declare that "The fact of evolution--or, which is the same
+thing, the fact of continuity in natural causation--has now been
+undoubtedly proved in many departments of nature," and that, in
+particular, "throughout the range of inorganic nature" it is "a
+demonstrated fact."
+
+If this be so, it must necessarily follow that the Laws of Nature, as
+Science finds them operating, sufficiently explain not only all that
+happens in our present world, but also all that must have happened while
+this world was being produced. According to what has already been said,
+by "The Law of Continuity" no more can be signified than that Continuity
+is a fact, that the world has actually come to be what it is through the
+continual operation of just the same natural forces as we find at work
+to-day. That things _did_ so happen we have not and cannot have, direct
+evidence; for no witness was there to report. We can but draw inferences
+from the present to the past, and argue that what Nature does to-day,
+she must have been capable of doing yesterday and the day before. Only
+thus can continuity of natural laws possibly be established. It would
+obviously be vain to argue that we must suppose no other forces ever to
+have acted than those we can observe, because, for all we know, other
+conditions may so have altered as to make their results altogether
+different from any of which we have experience.
+
+It is likewise manifest that if we are to speak of demonstrated facts,
+and of conclusions placed beyond rational possibility of doubt, proofs
+must be forthcoming sufficient to compel scientific assent.
+
+And here lies the difficulty. Very much must unquestionably have
+happened in the course of the world's making for which the Laws of
+Nature as we find them now acting cannot account, and which, therefore,
+Science cannot attempt to explain. So we are assured by eminent
+scientific men,--men, too, who desire nothing more than to find an
+explanation, but are driven, in search of one, as we have already seen
+Sir W. Crookes, to plead the limitation of our knowledge, and that there
+may be capabilities in Nature of which we are ignorant. But it remains
+always true, that what we do not know is not yet part of Science, and
+that if our scientific information, so far as it goes, is adverse to the
+Law of Continuity, it is quite unscientific to bring arguments for the
+law not from our knowledge, but from our lack of it. Still more
+unscientific is it to proclaim that Science has pronounced judgment in a
+sense contrary to that of all the evidence hitherto presented to her.
+
+Amongst the men of Science who testify as above, we may begin with Herr
+Du Bois-Reymond, an avowed Evolutionist and Materialist, whom Professor
+Haeckel styles, "the all-powerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin
+Academy of Sciences."[44] He can be suspected of no prejudices which
+would prevent him from accepting Professor Haeckel's cosmogony, if only
+he found the evidence satisfactory. Far from this, however, he
+declares,[45] that the history of the universe confronts us with no less
+than seven problems, for which Science has no solution to offer, and
+some of which he holds to be for ever insoluble. These he styles
+"Enigmas," and they are:
+
+(1) The nature of Matter and of Force.
+
+(2) The origin of Motion.
+
+(3) The origin of Life.
+
+(4) The apparently designed order of Nature.
+
+(5) The origin of sensation and consciousness.
+
+(6) The origin of rational thought and speech.
+
+(7) Free-will.
+
+The first, second, and fifth of these are in the opinion of Du
+Bois-Reymond "transcendental," or beyond possibility of solution. The
+others, in his judgment, have certainly not yet been solved, but
+_perhaps_ may be solved some day. As to the last, he much doubts whether
+it should not also be classed as "transcendental."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It thus appears that in the judgment of a competent witness, and one
+no-wise biassed by preconception or prejudice, so far from it being
+true that Professor Haeckel's story of the universe is imperiously
+imposed on us by the results of Science, not one but several great gulfs
+in the course of that history must have been bridged over somehow, which
+Science confesses she cannot bridge, so far as her present knowledge
+goes, that is to say, so far as she is Science at all.
+
+Professor Haeckel, it is true, loudly pronounces Du Bois-Reymond's
+declaration to be mere "dogmatism"[46] of a "shallow and illogical
+character," and he undertakes to show that with the help of his own
+philosophy the enigmas cease to be enigmatical.
+
+     In my opinion [he writes] the three transcendental problems (1, 2
+     and 5) are settled by our conception of substance; the three which
+     he [Du Bois-Reymond] considers difficult, though soluble[47] (3, 4
+     and 6) are decisively answered by our modern theory of evolution;
+     the seventh and last, the freedom of the will, is not an object for
+     critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+     on an illusion, and has no real existence.
+
+How far such a mode of rebuking dogmatism appears convincing, must of
+course depend on what the reader understands by an argument. Some points
+already considered may help us to a right estimate of proofs which are
+based upon "Our conception of substance," or "Our modern theory of
+evolution," and we shall presently inspect more closely the nature of
+the difficulties which we are invited so summarily to dismiss.
+Meanwhile, even though not final or conclusive, the testimony of such a
+man as Du Bois-Reymond serves at least to prove that it is possible to
+be thoroughly familiar with Science and her teaching, and yet to believe
+that as yet she knows nothing at all concerning questions which, as we
+have been assured, she has conclusively answered. And, as we shall
+presently see, if Professor Haeckel's account of things be the true one,
+there are many more scientific men of the first rank who are equally in
+the dark.
+
+In a word, while according to Professor Haeckel there is in the universe
+but one Riddle, which he tells us he has solved,--in the opinion of
+another who is certainly no less entitled to speak in the name of
+Science, there yet remain seven to which no answer has yet been given,
+and to three, at least, of which none will ever be found.
+
+
+
+
+VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+
+In the forefront of the problems which have been pronounced to be not
+only unsolved but insoluble, are the nature and origin of the ultimate
+factors arrived at by Science in her study of the constitution of the
+universe,--Matter, Force, and Motion.
+
+With the first and last of these alone need we at present concern
+ourselves, for "Force," as Science knows it, is always associated with
+Matter, and signifies no more in her terminology than that which
+produces, or tends to produce Motion. On the other hand, we are
+told,[48] that "The contents of the material universe may be expressed
+in terms of Matter and Motion."
+
+By "Matter" is understood "Sensible Substance," the stuff composing all
+of which our senses tell us, and which forms the object of Scientific
+investigation. What do we know concerning this raw material whereof
+worlds are made?
+
+As we have seen, Professor Haeckel and his school are ready to tell us.
+Matter, we are assured,[49] is self-existent and imperishable, "it has
+no beginning and no end; it is eternity." Together with Ether, it
+occupies infinite and boundless space. It is in ceaseless motion; and
+its interminable modifications produce everything that ever was or ever
+will be. Movement[50] is one of the "innate and original properties" of
+Matter. So are Sensation and Will,[51] but these, we are warned,[52] are
+"unconscious."
+
+Obviously, however, it is not enough that these things should be said,
+they require likewise to be proved; and the question must immediately
+suggest itself, Whence is proof to come? Not, by any possibility, from
+observation and experiment. For who can speak, of his own knowledge, to
+eternity or infinity? The only conceivable supposition is that Science
+has so thoroughly mastered the nature and properties of Matter here and
+now, as to be furnished with evidence unmistakably pointing to the above
+conclusions. Thus alone can she be quoted on their behalf; and it must
+always be remembered that the philosophy which we are examining is
+nothing if not scientific.
+
+But, in the first place, is it quite clear of what our philosophers are
+speaking? They use the term "Matter" as though it represented some one
+definite thing: but this is very far from being the case.
+
+     We must remember [says Lord Grimthorpe][53] that matter is not an
+     unit, as a creator is, and that talking of it so is merely a
+     rhetorical artifice when used in philosophical inquiries.... Matter
+     is nothing but the sum of all the ultimate particles or atoms
+     contained in the universe, or in any particular mass that we are
+     dealing with.... A very large proportion of the atoms of the
+     universe have never been within millions and billions of miles of
+     each other.
+
+Therefore, he goes on to urge, the doctrine of the self-existence of
+Matter, must mean that each several atom is self-existent, or "every
+atom its own god." How comes it then that they all obey the same "Laws"?
+How have their various provinces been allotted? Above all, how are they
+not all the same, but--so far as we know--divided into classes widely
+different from one another? For, according to our present
+knowledge,--and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves that upon this
+alone can any sound conclusion be based,--there are, in round numbers,
+some seventy different species of atoms, whose diverse qualities are
+absolutely necessary for the production of the world. Had all atoms been
+of one kind, we could have had none even of what used to be called the
+Four Elements,--neither Earth, Air, Fire, nor Water.
+
+But,--apart from this,--What is known concerning this same "Matter"? Has
+Science so thoroughly fathomed its constitution as to be able to
+declare that it possesses all the properties we have heard assigned to
+it,--Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may
+be,--locomotive power,--eternity,--and, in its collective capacity,
+immensity?
+
+So far from this being the case, scientific men who were most willing,
+and even anxious, to assign to Matter a foremost, if not _the_ foremost,
+place in Nature, have done so precisely upon the ground, not of our
+knowledge, but of our ignorance. No better examples need be sought than
+Professor Huxley, and Professor Tyndall, who alike agreed, in the words
+of the latter,[54] "to discern in Matter the promise and potency of
+every form and quality of life." But Huxley took his stand on the
+declaration, that we know so little about Matter as to make it
+impossible to say of what it may not be capable, for we cannot so much
+as be certain of its existence, and use the term only "for the unknown
+and hypothetical causes of our own states of consciousness,"[55] while
+Tyndall described the process, whereby the promise and potency are
+realized, as "the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to the
+intellect of man."
+
+Speculations thus founded upon the absence of evidence, whatever else
+they may be, are certainly no part of Science; and when we turn to what,
+being established by scientific methods, is a possible basis of
+scientific argument, we find that in every instance it contradicts
+instead of supporting the assertions we have heard.
+
+To begin with the question of Motion, as being both of supreme
+importance, and one more open than some others to observation and
+experiment. According to Professor Haeckel's teaching, "movement is an
+innate and original property of substance," that is to say of Matter,
+and in consequence, "Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted
+movement and transformation." It is by thus attributing to matter an
+inherent determination to move that he meets Du Bois-Reymond's
+difficulty as to the origin of motion.
+
+But this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's Laws, which
+are universally recognized as the most firmly established and
+unquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us that a
+body at rest will continue at rest for ever, unless compelled by some
+force to move; just as a body in motion will continue to move at the
+same rate and in the same direction, unless compelled by force to arrest
+or alter its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole
+of our Natural Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for
+the idea that Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is
+thus quite unscientific. Not self-movement but _Inertia_ is the property
+which Science ascribes to Matter.[56] It may further be observed that
+the idea of inherent motion is absurd and unintelligible; for movement
+cannot be in more than one direction at a time: so that a mass, or an
+atom, of Matter could tend to move only by having an intrinsic impulse
+in a straight line towards some one particular point. If it should tend
+to move indifferently, in all directions at once, it would remain
+motionless, each such tendency being neutralized by its opposite.
+
+As to the further claim made on behalf of Matter to be endowed with
+Sensation and Will, of any description, it must be enough to say that no
+one has ever pretended to find any evidence whatever to this effect, or
+to detect the faintest trace of such properties;--and that on the
+contrary, all experience shows inorganic Matter, (that is, Matter not
+incorporated in living animals or plants,) to be utterly lifeless and
+inert. It is a mere abuse and perversion of terms to speak of Science as
+countenancing any conclusion but that to which such experience points.
+The attempt to invest Matter with these attributes Professor Tait
+stigmatizes as "non-science," or "pseudo-science."[57]
+
+     The Pygmalions of modern days [he writes] do not require to beseech
+     Aphrodité to animate the ivory for them. Like the savage with his
+     _Totem_, they have themselves already attributed life to it.... The
+     latest phase of this peculiar non-science tells us that all Matter
+     is _alive_; or at least that it contains "the promise and potency"
+     (whatever these may be) "of all terrestrial life." ... So much for
+     the attempts to introduce into Science an element altogether
+     incompatible with the fundamental conditions of its existence.
+
+In fine, to make us realize not merely how extremely narrow are the
+bounds of our knowledge, but even how much narrower they may be than we
+suppose, there enters upon the scene Radium, like the golden apple that
+came to disturb the harmony of the celestials. What lessons this
+turbulent and unconventional element will ultimately be found to teach,
+and how far it will revolutionize the laws of Nature as hitherto
+accepted, remains, of course, to be seen: but this at least is clear. In
+presence of it, scientific men find that they are sure of nothing they
+thought most certain, not of the indestructibility of matter itself, on
+which is based that Law of Substance which we have seen made responsible
+for so much.
+
+It had been thought that whatever else might change or perish the atoms
+of which we have heard, as the ultimate constituents of Matter, were
+beyond the reach of any vicissitude. "No man," said Dalton, their
+discoverer, "can split an atom." Thus too Mr. Clodd, while acknowledging
+that the constitution even of atoms may some day be found to be liable
+to disorder and decay, clearly teaches that, as a practical certainty,
+we have in them got to something final. Taking one particular kind, an
+oxygen atom, as a text, he thus discourses:[58]
+
+     It matters not into how many myriad substances--animal, plant, or
+     mineral--an atom of oxygen may have entered, nor what isolation it
+     has undergone: bond or free, it retains its own qualities. It
+     matters not how many millions of years have elapsed during these
+     changes, age cannot wither or weaken it; amidst all the fierce play
+     of the mighty agencies to which it has been subjected it remains
+     unbroken and unworn; to it we may apply the ancient words, "the
+     things which are not seen are eternal."
+
+But now, with the recognition of radio-activity, and the disintegration
+of atoms into their constituent "electrons" which this is held to
+evidence, we have changed all that. Such disintegration, it is affirmed,
+must imply dissolution and death, alike of the atoms themselves and of
+the universe which they compose. As Sir William Crookes told the
+physicists assembled at Berlin, June, 1903:
+
+     This fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal,
+     and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk; it works
+     in the sunshine and raindrops, in lightnings and flame; it prevails
+     in the waterfall and the stormy sea.
+
+Matter he consequently regards as doomed to destruction.[59] Sooner or
+later, it will have dissolved into the "formless mist" of "prothyle"[60]
+and "the hour-hand of eternity will have completed one revolution."
+
+Consequently, we are told,[61]
+
+     The "dissipation of energy" has found its correlative in the
+     "dissolution of matter." We are confronted with an appalling sense
+     of desolation--of quasi-annihilation.
+
+It is no doubt true, here again, that such judgments cannot be called
+final, and that not all scientific men will accept them as they stand.
+But all alike are forced to agree that our previous notions are
+completely upset, and that we are compelled to recognize the fact that
+of these fundamental questions we know far less than the little we
+seemed to know. What, then, is to be thought of Professor Haeckel's
+confident utterances, which could be justified only on the supposition
+that we know everything? And what becomes of the famous Law of
+Substance, if both its parts are found thus to contradict the conclusion
+he would draw from it?
+
+The case is thus summed up by the writer of the article just cited:
+
+     The discovery of radio-activity is one of the most momentous in the
+     history of science. "There has been a vivid new start" (we again
+     borrow Sir William Crookes' expression). "Our physicists have
+     remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter." The
+     remodelling indeed has hardly commenced.... What is undeniable is
+     that the Daltonian atom has, within a century of its acceptance as
+     a fundamental reality, suffered disruption. Its proper place in
+     nature is not that formerly assigned to it, ... its reputation for
+     inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever. Each of these
+     supposed "ultimates" is now known to be the scene of indescribable
+     activities, a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of
+     parts, a star-cluster in miniature, subject to all kinds of
+     dynamical vicissitudes, to perturbation, acceleration, internal
+     friction, total or partial disruption. And to each is appointed a
+     fixed term of existence. Sooner or later, the balance of
+     equilibrium is tilted, disturbance eventuates in overthrow; the
+     tiny exquisite system finally breaks up. Of atoms, as of men, it
+     may be said with truth, "_Quisque suos patitur manes_."
+
+"Here," in fact, "we meet the impenetrable secret of creative
+agency."[62]
+
+
+
+
+IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+
+The question concerning the origin and nature of Life is of supreme and
+vital importance not only for those who speak of Evolution as a force or
+principle by which everything is guided and governed, but also for such
+as understand by the term no more than a process which they say has
+actually occurred. Evolutionists of this second class disclaim, with
+Huxley, any "philosophy of Evolution." They are content to take the
+world as a going concern, at the farthest point in the past to which,
+even speculatively, Science can trace it, as that vast primordial nebula
+of which we have heard.[63] Given this,--assuming the existence of such
+a nebula, constituted as they suppose,--they believe that the whole
+subsequent history of the world is fully explained by the uniform action
+of the same laws of matter which we find in operation to-day. Not only
+is the establishment of our Solar System, of sun and planets, to be
+thus accounted for, but likewise the production of life, of the organic
+world of plants and animals.
+
+Hence it necessarily follows that life must originally have been evolved
+naturally from lifeless matter, for all are agreed that not only in the
+nebula, but on the earth when it first started its independent career,
+life did not, and could not, exist.
+
+     There has been [says Virchow][64] a beginning of life, since
+     geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life
+     was impossible, and when no vestige of it is to be found.
+
+     If the evolution hypothesis is true, [says Huxley][65] living
+     matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the
+     hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that
+     living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely
+     incompatible with the gaseous state.
+
+     There was a time [says Tyndall][66] when the earth was a red-hot
+     molten globe, on which no life could exist.
+
+Accordingly, as Professor Huxley acknowledges, spontaneous generation is
+an evolutionary necessity. Unless such generation can be shown to have
+taken place, or at the very least unless it can be shown to be naturally
+possible, the theory which requires it cannot be an established truth.
+But it is precisely as a scientifically established truth that the
+doctrine of Evolution is presented to us, so firmly established indeed
+that we are warned "to doubt it is to doubt science."[67] It presents
+itself, moreover, as the most precious result of modern research, the
+appearance of which is as a sunrise illuminating the field of
+knowledge.[68]
+
+This being so, and it being the first principle of Science that we
+should take nothing on faith and accept only what can be proved, it is
+our plain duty to satisfy ourselves, as scientific methods alone can
+rightly satisfy us, that a doctrine of such paramount importance is
+entitled to demand our acceptance.
+
+What methods can claim to be scientific, all are agreed. Advances in
+science, Professor Tait warns us,[69]
+
+     come or not, as we remember or forget that our Science is to be
+     based entirely upon experiment, or mathematical deduction from
+     experiment.
+
+     Men of science [says Tyndall] prolong the method of nature from the
+     present into the past. The observed uniformity of nature is their
+     only guide.[70]
+
+     The man of science [says Huxley] has learned to believe in
+     justification, not by faith, but by verification.[71]
+
+In this manner must we test the Evolution theory, and spontaneous
+generation as an essential element thereof. We will begin with
+Professor Huxley's statement of what he styles "the fundamental
+proposition of Evolution."[72]
+
+     That proposition is [he writes] that the whole world, living and
+     not-living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to
+     definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which
+     the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be
+     true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay,
+     potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient
+     intelligence could, from a knowledge of that vapour, have
+     predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869[73] with
+     as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the breath in
+     a cold winter's day.
+
+That is to say, the supposed nebula was a vast piece of mechanism, of
+unimaginable complexity, the component parts of which under the
+influence of such forces as gravitation, heat, chemical affinity,
+electricity and magnetism, have produced everything that has since
+appeared on earth, vegetable and animal life amongst the rest. How are
+we to assure ourselves that such was really the case?
+
+Professor Tyndall has told us that the only scientific method is to
+prolong the method of nature from the present into the past, taking her
+observed uniformity for our only guide, and in like manner we have heard
+it laid down by Professor Romanes, that we must assume as a first
+principle that the laws of nature are always and everywhere the same,
+and that by their uniform operation everything is done. It is therefore
+quite clear that as no man was present when life first made its
+appearance, to observe and record whence it came, the only way in which
+we can possibly proceed, without violating every scientific canon, is to
+argue from what happens now, to what must have happened then,--to show
+that inorganic matter can in fact generate organic life, and to conclude
+that the same laws must have worked the same results in the past as they
+do in the present.
+
+But this is precisely what cannot be done, for one of the most
+conclusive results of modern research has been to show that in the
+present world spontaneous generation never occurs, that living things
+come only from living parents, and that from organic matter alone can
+the smallest particle of organic matter be derived. _Omne vivum e vivo,
+omnis cellula e cellula, omnis nucleus e nucleo._ Upon this point there
+is now complete agreement amongst scientific authorities, and what is
+most remarkable, none are more strenuous in upholding the doctrine of
+_Biogenesis_,[74] than some of those who with equal vehemence proclaim
+the doctrine of Evolution for which the occurrence of spontaneous
+generation is a necessity.
+
+Never, for example, were there Evolutionists more pronounced than
+Professors Huxley and Tyndall, and they both saw clearly that without
+spontaneous generation there could not have been evolution such as they
+maintained. Yet when the occurrence of spontaneous generation, here and
+now, was asserted by Bastian and Burdon Sanderson, they, following in
+the wake of Pasteur, repudiated the notion, and Tyndall in particular
+conclusively disproved the experiments by which it was supported.[75] As
+Huxley wrote to Charles Kingsley:[76]
+
+     I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of spontogenesis.
+     Against the doctrine of spontaneous generation in the abstract I
+     have nothing to say. Indeed it is a necessary corollary from
+     Darwin's views if legitimately carried out.
+
+A few years later, writing to Dr. Dohrn[77] upon the same subject, he
+made use of a phrase--which in his mouth expressed the uttermost limit
+of disbelief: "Transubstantiation will be nothing to this if it turns
+out true."
+
+In the same year as President of the British Association he chose for
+the subject of his inaugural address, "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis," and,
+after a careful examination of the case for each, pronounced the former
+"to be victorious all along the line."
+
+In spite of all this, however, he assured himself as an Evolutionist
+that spontaneous generation must once have been not only a possibility
+but a fact. In the same Presidential address, after piling up evidence
+against it--he thus continued:[78]
+
+     But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I
+     must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend
+     to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place
+     in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic
+     chemistry, molecular physics and physiology yet in their infancy,
+     and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the
+     height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under
+     which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some
+     day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in
+     affirming is that I see no reason for affirming that the feat has
+     been performed yet.
+
+     And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find
+     no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of
+     any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of
+     its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a
+     serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in
+     the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the
+     mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be
+     using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where
+     belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of
+     geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the
+     earth was passing through physical and dynamical conditions, which
+     it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I
+     should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm
+     from not living matter.... That is the expectation to which
+     analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect
+     that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of
+     philosophical faith.
+
+Here we have the whole state of the case put for us in a nutshell. On
+the one hand, all known facts are against the idea of spontaneous
+generation, and therefore, so far as she can at present go, the verdict
+of Science must condemn that supposition. But, on the other hand, the
+fundamental principle of Evolution cannot be justified unless
+spontaneous generation has taken place, and accordingly, although
+Evolution is the very thing which we should be engaged in establishing
+by the evidence of facts, it is held to be reasonable and scientific to
+infer that facts which we cannot verify must exist because they are
+wanted. It is admitted that the requisite evidence is lacking, and
+therefore we must not go so far as to express belief in the facts: but
+we may indulge in expectations,--which seem, however, to imply belief in
+the thing expected,--and meanwhile we may go on believing firmly in the
+Evolution theory itself, which includes belief in the missing facts.
+This, we are told, is "philosophical faith." But, to say nothing of what
+we have heard from others, Professor Huxley elsewhere[79] warns us
+against faith as the one unpardonable sin: and as we have heard him
+declare the man of science has learned to believe in justification, not
+by faith, but by verification.
+
+And as to the expectation which he avowed, there appears to be no slight
+force in the response of his adversary Dr. Bastian:[80]
+
+     What reason [he asks] does Professor Huxley give in explanation of
+     his supposition?... The only reason distinctly implied is because
+     the physical and chemical conditions of the earth's surface were
+     different in the past from what they are now. And yet, concerning
+     the exact nature of their differences, or the degree in which the
+     different sets of conditions would respectively favour the
+     occurrence or arrest of an evolution of living matter, Professor
+     Huxley cannot possess even the vaguest knowledge. He chooses to
+     assume that the unknown conditions existing in the past were more
+     favourable to _Archebiosis_ (life-evolution) than those now in
+     operation. This, however, is an assumption which may be entirely
+     opposed to the facts.
+
+It is thus hard to understand how Professor Huxley could profess to
+justify his expectations by verification, for that the above account of
+the matter is no-wise overstated we have his own acknowledgment:[81]
+
+     Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter,
+     it may be said that we know absolutely nothing.... Science has no
+     means to form an opinion on the commencement of life; we can only
+     make conjectures without any scientific value.
+
+Such a witness as Huxley might well suffice, but the question is so
+important as to make it advisable to call some others, though only a few
+amongst many who testify to the same effect.
+
+Like his friend and ally Huxley, Professor Tyndall believed that
+spontaneous generation had once occurred, and denied that it occurs now.
+As to the former article of his creed he was even more pronounced in his
+materialism. We have already heard him proclaim that in matter is to be
+discerned the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. He likewise
+inclined to believe that not only life but consciousness is immanent
+everywhere, in the vegetable and mineral no less than in the animal
+world,[82] and that not merely life and consciousness, but:
+
+     All our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our
+     art--Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael--are potential in the
+     fires of the sun.[83]
+
+Beliefs such as these might be thought to imply that the genesis of life
+is a simple affair, but Tyndall was no less convinced than Huxley that,
+as things are, it cannot be obtained without antecedent life on which
+to draw. Having described the experiments devised to test the matter, he
+thus concludes:[84]
+
+     Here, as in all other cases, the evidence in favour of spontaneous
+     generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer.
+
+At the same time, he was equally certain that life must have had an
+inorganic origin and that Science bids us so to believe. His various
+utterances are not, it is true, very easily reconciled. On the one hand
+he lays it down that "Without verification a theoretic conception is a
+mere figment of the intellect." On the other hand in his Belfast Address
+he thus expressed himself:
+
+     Believing, as I do, in the continuity of nature, I cannot stop
+     abruptly where our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision
+     of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By a
+     necessity engendered and justified by Science I cross the boundary
+     of the experimental evidence.... If you ask me whether there exists
+     the least evidence to prove that any form of life can be developed
+     out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life.... [men of
+     science] will frankly admit their inability to point to any
+     satisfactory experimental proof that life can be developed, save
+     from demonstrable antecedent life.
+
+Far, however, from being a mere figment, his mental vision is
+represented as the most unalloyed product of reason. He writes:[85]
+
+     Were not man's origin implicated, we should accept without a murmur
+     the derivation of animal and vegetable life from what we call
+     inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way
+     and no other.
+
+The conclusion of pure intellect, however, having nothing to show for
+itself in the way of evidence, we are again referred to a condition of
+things concerning which we know, and can know, nothing.
+
+     Supposing [writes the Professor][86] a planet carved from the sun,
+     set spinning round an axis, and revolving round the sun at a
+     distance from him equal to that of our earth, would one of the
+     consequences of its refrigeration be the development of organic
+     forms? I lean to the affirmative.
+
+It is no doubt interesting to know to what opinion the Professor
+inclined, but is this sort of thing Science?
+
+In the same manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, the philosopher of evolution
+_par excellence_, thus reports:[87]
+
+     Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world
+     no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of
+     non-living matter. They do not deny, however, that at a remote
+     period in the past, when the temperature of the surface of the
+     earth was much higher than at present, and other physical
+     conditions were _unlike those we know_,[88] inorganic matter,
+     through successive complications, gave origin to organic
+     matter.[89]
+
+Mr. Darwin himself, who is constantly supposed to have upheld, or even
+to have demonstrated, the fact of spontaneous generation, is amongst the
+strongest witnesses against it. He was indeed disposed to believe that
+the living will some day be found to be producible from the lifeless,
+the ground of his expectation being the "Law of Continuity,"[90] or the
+assumption that from the beginning of nature to the end one only kind of
+law uniformly operates, namely the same as we now experience. But this
+is to assume the whole question at issue, for unless it can be shewn
+that there has been spontaneous generation, we cannot be assured that
+there is such a Law of Continuity. And despite his expectation Darwin
+always denied that the origin of life has been--sometimes even that it
+can be--explained. Thus he wrote on various occasions:
+
+     It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one
+     might as well think of the origin of matter.[91]
+
+     As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and
+     though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will
+     be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the
+     confines of Science.[92]
+
+     No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced
+     in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic
+     matter.[93]
+
+Here we may conveniently pause and take stock of our results. On the one
+hand, we are bidden in the name of Science to learn the past from the
+present, and the present from observation and experiment alone. On the
+other, we are invited to believe in an occurrence which observation and
+experiment negative in the present, on the ground that the circumstances
+must once have been entirely different from any with which we are
+acquainted. Obviously, the real motive of belief is that naïvely
+expressed by Professor Haeckel, who tells us that spontaneous generation
+is proved by the doctrine of Evolution;[94] which then in its turn is
+proved by spontaneous generation.
+
+Two points must however be noticed in which it is attempted to find
+present evidence in favour of spontaneous generation.
+
+First, there is Protoplasm--the "Physical Basis of Life," or Living
+Matter, being that form of matter by which life is always accompanied.
+In this no chemical element unknown elsewhere, is to be found; the cells
+of which it consists are compounded of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and
+Carbon; and it has been argued, especially by Huxley, that it is
+therefore not different in kind from other compounds; that as Oxygen and
+Hydrogen form water, Oxygen and Carbon, Carbonic Acid, Hydrogen and
+Nitrogen, Ammonia,--so the four combined, in proper circumstances and
+proportions, make Living Matter, without the aid of any vital force or
+principle. And Haeckel with his habitual audacity foretells the
+artificial production of Protoplasm for purposes of commerce. But, as
+Mr. Stirling observes,[95] man has always known that he is made of dust,
+and that the only part of him perceptible to sense is substantially the
+same as the earth beneath his feet. All that he now learns in addition
+is that when such matter is wedded to life it undergoes marvellous
+transformations which in part at least we are able to recognize, but are
+wholly unable to comprehend. This Professor Huxley himself admits:
+
+
+     The properties of living matter [he writes][96] distinguish it
+     absolutely from all other kinds of things, and the present state of
+     knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the
+     not-living.
+
+Not only that: the subject is full of complexities of which Professor
+Huxley gives no hint, and which it would even seem he did not himself
+perceive. In his celebrated lecture on the Physical Basis of Life[97] he
+gives his hearers to understand that all Protoplasm is the same, that
+its particles are as the bricks with which any sort of edifice may be
+constructed, a cathedral or a gin-shop, a palace or a hovel. The
+protoplasm of a mushroom, for instance, he declares to be essentially
+identical with that of him who eats it, into which it is most readily
+convertible. He also speaks of the effect of eating mutton being to
+"transubstantiate sheep into man." But, positive as are these
+statements, they are far from representing scientific truths, and we are
+told by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer that he himself would not know what
+to do with a candidate who should advance such views in an
+examination.[98] As to the mushroom and the mutton, Sir William adds,
+that except the definition of a crab, as a red fish that runs backwards,
+attributed to the French Academy, he can call to mind no statement "so
+compact of error."
+
+In reality, instead of all Protoplasm being the same, the differences
+are infinite. Particles from different sources may be indistinguishable
+by the microscope or by any test that chemistry can apply, but this only
+increases the mystery of their nature, for each has its own functions
+and will perform no others. The Protoplasm of a plant will do what that
+of an animal, seemingly identical, cannot do. That of a fish will
+convert the same nutriment into quite a different formation from that of
+a man.
+
+     It is no doubt true that a particle of fungoid differs in no
+     appreciable physical respect from one of human protoplasm, yet the
+     former will never emerge from the fate of the humble mushroom,
+     while the other may be instinct with the thoughts of a Prime
+     Minister.[99]
+
+As Mr. Stirling sums up the matter:[100]
+
+     There is nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,
+     muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues, no one
+     of which but produces only its own kind, and is uninterchangeable
+     with the rest. Lastly, we have the overwhelming fact that there is
+     the infinitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely
+     different plants and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm,
+     as in the case of the various tissues, but produces its own kind,
+     and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest.
+
+It thus appears that the character of Protoplasm, far from making it
+easier to conceive the mechanical production of living things, does but
+immensely aggravate the difficulty. As Sir William Thiselton-Dyer avows:
+"I do not see even the beginning of a materialistic theory of
+protoplasm." And Haeckel's idea that we shall succeed in creating
+organic life does not commend itself to such an authority as Sir Henry
+Roscoe:
+
+     It is true [he says][101] that there are those who profess to
+     foresee that the day will arise when the chemist, by a succession
+     of constructive efforts may pass beyond albumen, and gather the
+     elements of lifeless matter into a living structure. Whatever may
+     be said of this from other standpoints, the chemist can only say
+     that at present no such problem lies within his province.
+     Protoplasm, with which the simplest manifestations of life are
+     associated, is not a compound, but a structure built up of
+     compounds. The chemist may successfully synthesize any of its
+     component compounds, but he has no more reason to look forward to
+     the synthetic production of the structure than to imagine that the
+     synthesis of gallic acid leads to the artificial production of
+     gall-nuts.
+
+And M. de Quatrefages thus sums up the conclusions at which he arrives
+from minute study of the lowest forms of life:[102]
+
+
+     I make bold to affirm that the deeper Science penetrates into the
+     secrets of organization and phenomena, the more does she
+     demonstrate how wide and how profound is the abyss which separates
+     brute matter from living things.
+
+The other point requiring notice is crystallization. Inorganic matter,
+as we know, can build up crystals, the wonderful structure of which
+results from the molecular properties of the substance crystallized. Why
+then, some would ask, may not matter in the same manner produce
+Protoplasm?
+
+But, in the first place, this, as we have heard, is what it is never
+found to do. Crystals we can produce at pleasure, in what quantity we
+will. But all efforts have not yet succeeded in obtaining the most
+minute speck of living matter. Moreover, nothing can be more widely
+different from organic structures than crystals. The latter are always
+mathematical, the former never: the latter grow by outside accretion, of
+the one kind of particles whereof they consist: the former by absorption
+and assimilation of various foreign substances: the latter are wholly
+independent of anything like an ancestor: for the former an ancestor is
+in our experience indispensable: crystals can be dissolved and
+recrystallized: living matter once destroyed can never be reconstituted.
+Above all, the particles incorporated in the crystal are absolutely
+quiescent, so far as any portion of matter can be said to be so, no more
+able to change their position without external force than the bricks in
+a wall, while those in living tissue at once become subject to "the
+whirlwind of life," involving constant change the cessation of which is
+death.
+
+     It is inexplicable to me [says M. de Quatrefages][103] that some
+     men whose merits I otherwise acknowledge, should have compared
+     crystals to the simplest living forms.... These forms are the
+     antipodes of the crystal from every point of view.
+
+To the same effect speaks Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin's associate in
+the discovery of the Darwinian theory. In a work expressly devoted to
+the vindication of that theory, Mr. Wallace declares that far from the
+way of evolution being made clear by Science from end to end--"there are
+at least three stages in the development of the organic world where some
+new cause or power must necessarily have come into action." And at the
+head of them he places that which we are now considering, writing
+thus:[104]
+
+     The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the
+     earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it
+     arose, first appeared.... There is in this something quite beyond
+     and apart from chemical changes however complex; and it has been
+     well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the
+     world, possessing altogether new powers....[105]
+
+Such testimonies are sufficient for our present purpose. In face of them
+it cannot be pretended that Science _knows_ anything of spontaneous
+generation or gives her verdict in its favour. On the contrary, as
+Professor Tait declares:[106]
+
+     To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to speak of its
+     higher forms, still less of volition and consciousness, can be
+     fully _explained_ on physical principles alone, ... is simply
+     unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science
+     which can lend the slightest support to such an idea.... To suppose
+     that life, even in its lowest form, is wholly material, involves
+     either a denial of the truth of Newton's laws of motion, or an
+     erroneous use of the term "Matter." Both are alike unscientific.
+
+Yet it is precisely in the name of Science that we have been told to
+accept the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter, as a
+clearly demonstrated truth, and no riddle at all.
+
+But as Professor Virchow, Evolutionist and Materialist as he was, well
+said in regard of this very point in the Munich Congress of 1877:
+
+     If we would speak frankly, we must admit that naturalists may well
+     have some little sympathy for the _generatio aequivoca_
+     [spontaneous generation]. If it were capable of proof, it would
+     indeed be beautiful! But, we must acknowledge, it has not yet been
+     proved. The proofs of it are still wanting.... Whoever recalls to
+     mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts to discover a
+     decided support for the _generatio aequivoca_ in the lower forms of
+     transition from the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it
+     doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly discredited,
+     should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of
+     life.
+
+
+
+
+X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+
+Leaving for later consideration the fourth of Du Bois-Reymond's Unsolved
+Enigmas, namely the seemingly pre-ordained order of the universe, we may
+conveniently group together the three which follow it, as much
+resembling that which has just occupied our attention. These problems,
+it will be remembered, are (_a_) the origin of simple sensation and
+consciousness, or, in other words, of the faculties possessed by
+animals; (_b_) that of rational thought and speech; (_c_)
+Free-will.--Here again we are bound to ask, in the name of right reason
+and common-sense, what light has really been thrown on such questions by
+Science, and how far she has changed their aspect,--that so we may guard
+against the delusion of imagining ourselves to be in possession of more
+knowledge than we actually possess.
+
+(_a_) _Simple sensation and consciousness._ As regards the actual origin
+of the higher form of life which distinguishes the animal from the
+vegetable, we are obviously no better informed than we have found
+ourselves to be concerning the first beginnings of life in any form,--no
+evidence as to the actual facts being available, or even possible, for
+our enlightenment. Once more we can only argue from the present to the
+past, and enquire whether the progress of science has made it more
+reasonable to suppose than it seemed in pre-scientific days that animal
+life has been spontaneously evolved, either from inanimate matter or
+from the vegetative life of plants. This enquiry so much resembles that
+which we have just concluded as to make it unnecessary to pursue it at
+any length.
+
+We find, in fact, that men of Science who have no prepossessions
+whatever against Evolution, and would willingly accept the Law of
+Continuity at all points, if only evidence were forthcoming, find here
+not only an unsolved problem, but one even more difficult than the
+Origin of Life itself. Du Bois-Reymond for example places this amongst
+his "transcendental" enigmas, to which an answer will never be found,
+whereas he thinks that the origin of vegetable life, although at present
+a mystery, may one day be explained. The expression of his
+opinion,--that by no possibility can we ever understand how
+consciousness could be evolved from matter--has, he tells us[107] been
+vehemently contradicted, but, he adds, nothing in the way of argument,
+or beyond mere assumptions, has been brought against him. Of these
+assumptions he notices only that of Professor Haeckel, "the Prophet of
+Jena," who protests against such limitations of our possibilities as
+treason to the sacred cause of Evolution. The progress we have made in
+intellect, says Haeckel, beyond our barbarous progenitors, is sufficient
+to show that we are on the high road of development towards a stage as
+far in advance of the present, as this is of the past; and when that is
+attained, our knowledge will be full and will embrace all this. But,
+asks Du Bois-Reymond in reply, is this mighty progress of ours so very
+evident within the period concerning which we have any information? Has
+the mental capacity of our race notably improved since Homer?[108] or
+its faculty of thinking since Plato and Aristotle? At our present rate
+of progress, long before the high-water mark prophesied by Haeckel is
+reached, the earth will have become uninhabitable. And, were it
+otherwise, the highest point of intellect to which conceivably man could
+attain, would be that of the "sufficient intelligence" whereof we have
+been told, which, from an inspection of the cosmic nebula could foretell
+all that was to issue from it. And, adds Du Bois-Reymond, even could we
+do this, we should still be unable to understand the origin of
+consciousness, which would require intelligence of another order than
+ours, however magnified.
+
+So again Mr. Wallace tells us,[109] after speaking of the beginning of
+life as we have already heard,
+
+     The next stage is still more marvellous, still more completely
+     beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and
+     forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness,
+     constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
+     vegetable kingdoms. Here all idea of mere complication of structure
+     producing the result is out of the question. We feel it to be
+     altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of
+     complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
+     that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence, a
+     thing that _feels_, that is conscious of its own existence. Here we
+     have the certainty that something new has arisen, a being whose
+     nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and
+     definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals. No
+     verbal explanation or attempt at explanation--such as the statement
+     that life is the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm,
+     or that the whole existing organic universe from the amœba up to
+     man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was
+     developed--can afford any mental satisfaction, or help us in any
+     way to a solution of the mystery.
+
+Unquestionably, there is no lack of speakers and writers who flatly
+contradict such views, and assert that animal life, equally with
+vegetable, could be, and must have been, naturally evolved from
+inorganic nature. The above testimonies, however, amply suffice for our
+present purpose, and with them we may be satisfied; for at least they
+make it plain that Science has found no evidence as to the origin of
+sensation and consciousness conclusive enough to compel belief. And
+where there is no scientific evidence even alleged, such as might
+require the training of a specialist for its due appreciation, one man
+of ordinary intelligence is as competent a judge as another, and
+scientific experts are on a level with the rest of us.
+
+(_b_) _Rational thought and speech._ What has just been said applies
+with equal force to this matter likewise. Unless Science have some
+positive evidence to bring, demonstrating how the gulf can be bridged
+which separates the intelligence of the most degraded races of men from
+the highest of the brutes, and how articulate language can spontaneously
+have arisen, which is the necessary appanage of reason, we have all
+equally the means of forming our conclusions on the subject.
+
+That the gulf between man and the lower animals is here immense we have
+the evidence of Mr. Darwin.
+
+     No doubt [he writes][110] the difference is in this respect
+     enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages,
+     who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who
+     uses no abstract terms for the commonest objects or affections,
+     with that of the most highly organized ape. The difference would,
+     no doubt, still remain immense, even if one of the highest apes had
+     been improved and civilized as much as a dog has been in comparison
+     with its parent form, the wolf or jackal. The Fuegians rank
+     amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with
+     surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. _Beagle_,
+     who had lived some years in England and could talk a little
+     English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental
+     faculties.
+
+Mr. Darwin goes on to argue, however, that the difference between man
+and beast is one of degree only and not of kind; that this can be
+"clearly shewn"; and that there is unquestionably
+
+     a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest
+     fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
+     between an ape and a man; yet this immense interval is filled up by
+     numberless gradations,
+
+from which he concludes that by a like series of steps, of which,
+however, no trace is left, our progenitors have been able to mount from
+the simian to the human level.
+
+Clear however as Mr. Darwin pronounces the evidence to be, it is very
+far from being so considered by other eminent naturalists. So convinced
+an Evolutionist as Mr. Mivart, for example, declared on various
+occasions that his reason abundantly sufficed to convince him that there
+was a wider break in nature between man and the highest ape, than
+between the highest ape and an oyster or even a mushroom.
+
+It is evident that the evidence which permits judgments so diverse as
+these cannot be said conclusively to prove the former existence of a
+bridge every vestige of which has, by the acknowledgment of all parties,
+entirely disappeared. We are therefore left to determine for ourselves,
+whether the powers of our own mind, as each knows them in himself, are
+of a totally different nature from those of dogs and horses, and
+chimpanzees such as the late lamented "Consul," or whether we are
+superior only in degree, as a sheep-dog is more intelligent than a
+sheep, or a fox than a goose.
+
+If in any respect such an enquiry can be made definite and therefore
+profitable, it is clearly in regard of Language. This, as said above, is
+an essential adjunct of reason such as ours, and on the other hand it
+forms the plainest boundary between the domain of the human race and
+that of the brutes. It is, says Professor Max Müller, our Rubicon on the
+hither side of which men alone are found. Given reason such as ours,
+whatever mode of communication might be open to them, we cannot suppose
+its possessors failing to establish a medium of intercourse. In existing
+conditions, man can make an alphabet out of the clicks of a needle or
+the flashes of a mirror, and if his vocal organs were no better than
+those of a baboon, we cannot imagine him content generation after
+generation with inarticulate howls and yells. But this is just the case
+of the animals. They are _never_ found to make the smallest progress in
+the direction of a code of signals. Dogs indeed, as Mr. Darwin
+says,[111] having developed in captivity the new art of barking, have
+further learnt to vary this accomplishment according to the
+circumstances that provoke it, and have distinct tones to express the
+diversity of their feelings, as when hunting, or angry, or setting out
+for a walk, or shut up in a kennel or out of a house. Some dogs, he
+might have added, refine still further, and will betray by their style
+of bark not only that they are hunting something, but what it is that
+they have come upon, whether a rabbit, a cat, or a hedgehog. But, as the
+Chevalier Bunsen observes,[112] and his observation includes such
+manifestations as the above:
+
+     Animal sounds are the echoes of blind instincts within, or of the
+     phenomena of the outward world, uttered by suffering or satisfied
+     animal nature, and in all cases resulting from mere passiveness.
+
+By rational language, on the other hand, is signified, to quote Mr.
+Mivart:[113]
+
+     The external manifestation, whether by sound or gesture, of general
+     conceptions:--not emotional expressions or the manifestations of
+     sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judgments as to
+     "the what," "the how," and "the why."
+
+Consequently, as Bunsen declares:
+
+     The theories about the origin of language have followed those
+     about the origin of thought, and have shared their fate. The
+     materialists have never been able to show the possibility of the
+     first step. They attempt to veil their inability by the easy but
+     fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to
+     explain the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions
+     of years could supply the want of the agent necessary for the first
+     movement, for the first step in the line of progress! No numbers
+     can effect a logical impossibility. How indeed could reason spring
+     out of a state which is destitute of reason? How can speech, the
+     expression of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of
+     years, out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of
+     pleasure, pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will
+     always shrink from such theories.
+
+Bunsen's words were echoed even more forcibly by professor Max Müller,
+speaking as President of the Anthropological Section of the British
+Association at Cardiff in 1889.
+
+     What [he asked] does Bunsen consider the real barrier between man
+     and beast? It is language, which is unattainable, or at least
+     unattained, by any animal except man.
+
+     You know [he continued] how for a time, and chiefly owing to
+     Darwin's predominating influence, every conceivable effort was made
+     to reduce the distance which language places between man and beast,
+     and to treat language as a vanishing line in the mental evolution
+     of animal and man. It required some courage at times to stand up
+     against the authority of Darwin, but at present all serious
+     thinkers agree, I believe, with Bunsen, that no animal has ever
+     developed what we mean by rational language, as distinct from mere
+     utterances of pleasure or pain, a subject lately treated with great
+     fulness by Professor Romanes. Still, if all true science is based
+     on facts, the fact remains that no animal has ever found what we
+     mean by a language; and we are fully justified, therefore, in
+     holding with Bunsen and Humboldt, as against Darwin and Romanes,
+     that there _is_ a specific difference between the human animal and
+     all other animals, and that that difference consists in language as
+     the outward manifestation of what the Greeks meant by _Logos_.
+
+It is moreover evident that, far from speech having generated reason, as
+some have preposterously maintained, it is reason which generates
+speech, no less inevitably than sunlight produces the spectrum when it
+passes through a prism. The seeming paradox of Wilhelm von Humboldt is
+in fact a sober truth: "Man is man only through speech, but in order to
+invent it he must already be man." We have plain evidence that before
+means for the internal expression of it are found, the mental word
+(_verbum mentale_) is awaiting them, and that without this it would be
+as impossible for any sort of rational speech to be produced as for an
+apple to be grown without an apple-tree.
+
+Evidence to this effect is furnished by recorded instances of persons
+who from early childhood, or even from birth, were deaf, dumb, and
+blind, and appeared to be cut off from all possibility of human
+converse, the "gates of Mansoul" being thus almost entirely closed. Such
+are the well-known cases of Laura Bridgman, Miss Keller, and Martha
+Obrecht, who had been thus afflicted since their earliest childhood, the
+two first named from the age of two, and the last from that of three
+years.[114] Also the more recent instance of Marie Heurtin, who was so
+born, and consequently could not have even the faintest glimmer of any
+knowledge these senses could convey.[115] Yet, by the exercise of
+ingenious and unwearied charity, a means of communication was elaborated
+through the sense of touch, and the souls which had seemingly been
+buried alive, shewed themselves responsive to such advances,--often
+astonishingly so,--and revealed their possession of faculties identical
+with those of their rescuers. We are told, for example, of Marie Heurtin
+that her intelligence proved to be quick, that she was even "unusually
+clever, evidently eager for knowledge, and, as sometimes happens, her
+faculties being prevented by her infirmity from wasting their powers on
+external objects, were all the more fresh and vigorous." Even more
+wonderful is the case of Miss Keller, who attained a degree of culture
+and accomplishment far beyond the common level of those possessing the
+use of all their senses.
+
+Somewhat akin to such instances is that of the savages from Tierra del
+Fuego mentioned above by Mr. Darwin. In their case likewise, when they
+were brought into communication with people possessed of higher culture
+than their own degraded race, it was found that the corresponding
+faculties within them were not dead, or as yet non-existent, but only
+starved into lethargy; and, the opportunity being given, they speedily
+caused surprise by unmistakable proofs how closely they resemble
+ourselves.
+
+Thus we find that in this branch of our enquiry there is one broad fact,
+which all must recognize and none can deny. No race of men has ever been
+known which could not speak, nor any race of animals which could, or
+which had made the first beginnings of intelligent language. Facts being
+the only groundwork of Science here is undoubtedly something whereon she
+may build an inference, and this inference will certainly not be that
+the faculties of men and animals are radically identical. And if we are
+told, as we constantly are, that it is more truly scientific to admit
+such identity, should there not be some other facts, still more
+significant and equally well established, to exhibit on the other side?
+
+But of what character are the arguments actually adduced? It will be
+sufficient to quote a few which come with the highest authority.
+
+We may start with the almost classical specimen contributed by Mr.
+Darwin himself.
+
+     It does not [he says][116] appear altogether incredible that some
+     unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the
+     growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys
+     the nature of the expected danger. And this would have been a first
+     step in the formation of a language.
+
+Similarly Professor Whitney writes of some supposed "pithecoid"[117]
+men:
+
+     There is no difficulty in supposing them to have possessed forms of
+     speech, more rudimentary and imperfect than ours.[118]
+
+And so again Professor Romanes:[119]
+
+     Let us try to imagine a community considerably more intelligent
+     than the existing anthropoid apes, although still considerably
+     below the intellectual level of existing savages. It is certain
+     that in such a community natural signs of voice, gesture, and
+     grimace would be in vogue to a greater or less extent. As their
+     numbers increased ... such signs would require to become more and
+     more conventional, or acquire more and more the character of
+     sentence-words.
+
+Of course, as Mr. Mivart replies,[120] there is no difficulty in
+supposing anything we choose, or in seeing animals in imagination
+performing feats which never yet have they been known to achieve in
+fact. But no amount of such suppositions or imaginations will furnish
+Science with the scantiest apology for a foothold, nor can the germs of
+language attributed to pithecoid communities or the sagest of their
+patriarchs, be considered as of any greater value than the speeches put
+into the mouths of the animals by Æsop or "Uncle Remus."
+
+It is also to be noticed that in these accounts of the origin of
+language, the essential element of reason is always quietly smuggled in
+as a matter of course. Thus Mr. Darwin's wisest of the pithecoids was
+able to "think of" a device for the information of his fellows. There is
+not the smallest doubt that any creature which had got so far as _that_
+would find what he wanted. It is but the old case of the man who was
+sure he could have written Hamlet had he had a mind to do so. Like him,
+the ape might have made the invention, if he had a mind to make
+it;--only he had not got the mind. So too, Professor Romanes' missing
+links use tones and signs which acquire "more and more" the character of
+true speech: which could not be unless they contained some measure of
+that character already. But it is just the first step thus ignored which
+spans the gulf between man and brute.
+
+There is another factor upon which, in conjunction with these
+suppositions, great stress is wont to be laid, namely that of time; it
+being apparently taken for granted that if only time enough be given
+anything whatever may come about. Thus Professor Romanes tells us[121]
+that his imaginary _Homo alalus_, or speechless man, must probably have
+lived for an "inconceivably long time," before getting far enough on the
+road towards speech to give him such an advantage as enabled him to
+crush out his less accomplished congeners; and that even after this
+point was reached, another "inconceivable lapse of time" must have been
+required to turn him into _Homo sapiens_, or man as he actually is.
+Immense intervals, he further tells us, must have been consumed in the
+passage through various grades of mental evolution; "The epoch during
+which sentence-words prevailed was probably immense"; "It was not until
+æons of ages had elapsed that any pronouns arose."
+
+Meanwhile, there is no scrap of evidence that as a matter of fact any
+thing of all this ever happened at all, and as Bunsen has observed no
+millions of years, even were millions available at discretion, could
+ever supply the want of the faculty without which nothing in the way of
+language could ever be accomplished.
+
+(_c_) _Free-will._--Here is another human faculty which Du Bois-Reymond
+declares never to have been accounted for by natural causation, and he
+greatly doubts whether it should not be classed among the problems that
+must be for ever insoluble.
+
+Professor Haeckel, as we have seen, gets rid of all difficulties on this
+score by laying it down that "the freedom of the will is not an object
+for critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+on an illusion, and has no real existence."
+
+It is plain that for his purpose this is the only course possible. If
+the will be really free, there can be no question of finding a
+mechanical explanation of it. There is therefore no alternative but to
+cut the Gordian knot, and to declare that the liberty which the vast
+majority of men believe themselves to exercise every instant, is proved
+by Science to be no better than a pure dogma, that is to say, a mere
+figment.
+
+When we seek for his indication of the line of argument whereby this
+position is made good, the information supplied is less full than might
+be desired. He begins[122] with a rather lengthy sketch of the history
+of controversy in this regard,--which contains the remarkable statement
+that "Some of the first teachers of the Christian Churches--such as St.
+Augustine and Calvin--rejected the freedom of the will as decidedly as
+the famous leaders of pure Materialism, Holbach in the eighteenth, and
+Büchner in the nineteenth century." Then he proceeds:
+
+     The great struggle between the determinist and the indeterminist,
+     between the opponent and the sustainer of the freedom of the will,
+     has ended to-day after more than 2,000 years, completely in favour
+     of the determinist. The human will has no more freedom than that of
+     the higher animals, from which it differs only in degree, not in
+     kind. In the last [i.e. the eighteenth] century the doctrine of
+     liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological
+     arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different
+     weapons for its definitive destruction--the powerful weapons which
+     we find in the arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We
+     now know that each act of the will is as fatally determined by the
+     organization of the individual, and as dependent on the momentary
+     condition of his environment, as every other psychic activity. The
+     character of the inclination was determined long ago by _heredity_
+     from parents and ancestors; the determination to each particular
+     act is an instance of _adaptation_ to the circumstances of the
+     moment wherein the strongest motive prevails, according to the laws
+     which govern the statics of emotion. Ontogeny teaches us to
+     understand the evolution of the will in the individual child.
+     Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development of the will
+     within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors.[123]
+
+That is all. It is needless to observe that jargon like this proves
+nothing. Of anything approaching to evidence there is here, manifestly,
+no vestige, and there is consequently nothing which can avail to win our
+assent as rational men.
+
+It is likewise obvious that we have here a question as to which every
+human being has the means of judging equally with the most eminent man
+of Science, and modern improvement of the methods and instruments of
+research leaves us just where we always were. The final evidence on the
+subject every man has within himself, in the most vital facts of his own
+experience. Into the philosophy of the matter it is neither necessary
+nor advisable at present to go. In dealing with profound yet elementary
+questions, regarding which our means of knowledge are thus simple and
+direct, men are apt to bewilder themselves when they begin to
+philosophize, and to persuade themselves that they cannot be sure
+precisely of those things that are most certain. George Borrow is by no
+means the only one who has tormented himself with doubts as to his own
+existence.[124] A still larger number have professed to believe
+themselves mere machines compelled to go like clocks, and to do only
+what has been predetermined for them. But such beliefs are for the
+lecture-room or the study only, and in practical life every one behaves
+as if both he himself and others--especially others--were responsible
+for their conduct. So common-sense teaches, than which we shall not find
+a safer guide. "Sir," said the eminently common-sense Dr. Johnson, "we
+_know_ our will is free; and _there's_ an end on't. All theory is
+against the freedom of the will; all experience for it.... But, Sir, as
+to the doctrine of necessity, no man believes it. If a man should give
+me arguments that I cannot answer to prove that I cannot see; because I
+cannot answer his arguments, do I believe that I have no eyes?"
+
+Thus we find once again that the doctrines which some would force upon
+us in the name of Science, on whatever they are founded, have no basis
+of fact, and cannot therefore rightly call themselves scientific.
+
+
+
+
+XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+
+That the world which we inhabit is a _Cosmos_, ruled by law and order,
+no one has ever attempted to deny. Only because laws are everywhere
+found awaiting discovery, is natural science a possibility. What such
+laws really are, we have already considered. They are, as Mr. Lewes puts
+it, the paths along which the forces of nature travel to their results;
+and it is only because these forces keep invariably each to its proper
+path, that we are able to follow them with our minds, either to learn
+anything concerning them, or to turn our knowledge to practical account.
+In something of the same manner, it is because we are assured that our
+railway trains will run on their appointed lines, that we can learn from
+Bradshaw how to get to Exeter or to Edinburgh;--but the forces of Nature
+are never derailed. It is, in fact, as we have heard, the first
+principle of Science, that "the reign of law is universal, the principle
+of continuity ubiquitous,"--and upon this the validity of all her
+methods and conclusions wholly depends. It is taken for granted, with
+absolute confidence, that what is once found to happen will be exactly
+repeated in like circumstances,--that the laws experimentally observed,
+regarding motion, heat, light, sound, chemical combination, electricity,
+magnetism, and the rest, will be faithfully obeyed, in every minutest
+particular, as certainly as suns will rise and set, or moons wax and
+wane. Were it not so, were the forces of Nature to act spasmodically and
+at random, and did not their common action so result as to establish or
+subserve other laws of bewildering complexity,--as in molecular
+dynamics, the mechanism of the heavens, and the processes of organic
+life,--we could learn no more from the study of nature than from a page
+of type which had been set up by an idiot, or an anthropoid ape.
+
+Here is another factor in our problem, and one which has from the first
+attracted the attention of thinking men. No feature of nature impressed
+them more than this same reign of law and order, apparent everywhere;
+and on this account they called the world _Cosmos_, instead of _Chaos_.
+And, since it is self-evident that everything must have a reason for its
+being, that whatever is not self-existent must have a cause other than
+itself, they felt compelled to enquire what manner of cause would
+account for law and order. The like enquiry we have still to pursue, and
+by methods radically the same as ever; for amid all her discoveries
+Science has found nothing which does anything whatever to furnish an
+answer. All that has been done is enormously to multiply the aspects
+under which the problem presents itself.
+
+It is now not merely in the larger and more obvious operations of Nature
+that we can trace this marvellous ubiquity of law, but in her most
+hidden processes and inmost constitution. At every point, we are forced
+to ask why things should be as they actually are, and how they came to
+be subject to conditions which they cannot be supposed to have created
+for themselves. Why, for example, should the ultimate elements of
+matter,--be they atoms, or electrons, or whatever else,--always and
+everywhere observe the same rules of the great game in which they serve
+as counters? Why, to take a concrete instance, should atoms of Hydrogen
+in Sirius, or in a star of the Milky Way, obey just the same laws as do
+those with which we make coal-gas or spirit of salt? These various
+atoms, as Lord Grimthorpe reminds us, have never been within billions of
+miles of one another. What is the mysterious influence which links them
+together across the depths of space? That they are so linked is obvious;
+for if we can ascertain the existence of such a substance in other
+spheres, it is only because the light it emits, exactly agrees when
+analyzed in the spectroscope with that of hydrogen flames in our own
+laboratories. How comes it, again, that the seventy different kinds of
+atoms, (to speak in round numbers)--are distributed--according to
+Mendeléeff's periodic law,--among some seven groups or families, the
+members of each group resembling one another in various particulars,
+wherein they differ from the rest? Or, to pass from atoms to molecules,
+(in which atoms of the same or of different kinds combine, to build up
+simple or compound substances respectively,)--how is it that molecules
+of the same kind are always constructed upon exactly the same model,
+resembling one another far more closely than sovereigns struck from the
+same die, or different copies of this morning's _Times_? It was in this
+uniformity of type, character and behaviour, repeated always and
+everywhere, in instances multiplied "beyond the power of imagination to
+conceive," that Sir John Herschel[125] saw a feature stamping atoms and
+molecules as "manufactured articles, and subordinate agents," which, no
+less than a line of spinning-jennies, or a regiment of soldiers clad in
+the same uniform, and going through the same evolutions, imply a
+controlling force directing things according to a definite system.
+
+These and innumerable other particulars of detail has Science added to
+the problem: but of anything which can supply an answer, she knows no
+more than did the first man who ever mooted the question within his own
+soul.
+
+And if in the inorganic world we find food for such considerations, with
+immensely greater instance are they forced upon us by a study of the
+organic. Here we enter a new realm of mystery, for the laws we encounter
+actively energizing at every point, are altogether different from those
+with which hitherto we have had to deal. The matter which enters into
+the constitution of living things,--animals or plants--is precisely the
+same as that of which the inorganic world is constituted. No single atom
+or molecule is found in the one which has not been drawn from the
+other;--nor when incorporated in a living structure do atoms or
+molecules suffer any alteration, or change their nature in any respect,
+for, says Clerk-Maxwell,[126] throughout all changes and catastrophes
+these remain "unbroken and unworn." Nevertheless, they fall at once
+under the spell of a force which introduces into their operations an
+order altogether new, for it somehow strikes across all the laws of dead
+matter, setting up a new code of its own, which endures just so long as
+life lasts, and is never met with apart from life. And these organic
+laws issue in marvellous results. Professor Haeckel himself, after
+endeavouring to show that from the inorganic world no arguments can be
+drawn to favour the supposition of design in Nature, thus
+continues:[127]
+
+     But the idea of design has a very great significance and
+     application in the _organic_ world. We do undeniably perceive a
+     purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant
+     and animal seem to be controlled by a definite design in the
+     combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in
+     the machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life
+     continues, the functions of the several organs are directed to
+     definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a
+     machine.
+
+How Haeckel proceeds to argue that such appearance of purposive design
+is merely fallacious, we need not here stay to enquire; our present
+concern is to attempt to realize the evidence of law and order which the
+world everywhere exhibits. As we have just heard, the parts of an
+organism, like those of a motor-car, or a chronometer, combine their
+operations for the production of definite ends; the attainment of which
+depends in all instances upon the nicest correspondence of various
+details of their work. Thus, that there should be eyes capable of
+seeing, the laws of optics must be satisfied, reflection, refraction and
+the rest, just as exactly in the making of an eye as in that of a
+telescope. _De facto_ they _are_ satisfied. The eye, Mr. Darwin
+styles[128] "a living optical instrument as superior to one of glass as
+the works of the Creator[129] are to those of man." He speaks, moreover,
+of "all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
+distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
+correction of spherical and chromatic aberration."[130] Therefore,
+however we are to account for them, the laws which govern the
+production of eyes successfully solve a practical problem and satisfy
+laws which were in force before an animal with eyes appeared on earth.
+
+In just the same way, the requirements of sound are met by the
+structure of the ear, which Sir Henry Holland, for example,[131] judged
+more wonderful than that of the eye itself.
+
+So again as to wings. They are in the first place such marvellous pieces
+of workmanship that as Mr. Pettigrew writes concerning one of their
+forms.[132] "There are few things in nature more admirably constructed
+than the wing of a bird, and perhaps none where design can be more
+readily traced." But, moreover, wings entirely different in plan, as of
+birds, bats, and all the varieties of insects, alike satisfy the laws of
+aerostatics, and successfully solve in practice the problem of flight, a
+problem which we are unable to solve even theoretically. "It is
+evident," writes Lord Grimthorpe,[133] "that nobody yet thoroughly
+understands the whole theory of flying, though we are seeing it
+continually, and have unlimited opportunities of examining all sorts of
+wings. The explanation that appears plausible for one kind, not only
+will not do for another but seems refuted by it." Yet in a multitude of
+different ways, the forces of Nature succeed in effecting what with all
+our Science we cannot shew to be possible.
+
+And concerning not merely one portion of a creature's structure, but the
+whole, Professor Huxley declares:[134]
+
+     The horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the
+     fact that it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect
+     pieces of machinery in the living world. In truth, among the works
+     of human ingenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive
+     so perfectly adapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so
+     small a quantity of fuel, as this machine of Nature's
+     manufacture--the horse.
+
+These are but a few out of countless similar examples. "We are
+constantly discovering," says Lord Grimthorpe, "new complications and
+processes, and what to all common sense appear contrivances, in the
+organs of all living things, and indeed we can find no limit to them."
+In all these cases an instrument is fashioned precisely adapted to the
+performance of a certain function, and it is therefore obvious on first
+principles that there must exist _some_ power capable of producing such
+instruments.
+
+It will probably be answered that there are forces enough in Nature to
+account for everything, and that these furnish the needful explanation.
+But, as Mr. Croll rightly insists,[135] Force by itself explains
+nothing. Its mere exercise has no tendency whatever to produce such
+effects. There must likewise be Determination of Force in the one
+definite direction required, and it is in the source of this
+Determination that the true cause must be sought to which the result is
+due. It is not simply because iron is hammered and filed that a
+railway-engine is produced; nor is it sufficient that a block of marble
+be chipped with mallet and chisel in order to obtain a statue of Apollo.
+Unless some influence comes in to direct the forces in such cases to
+their respective results, the results will never by any possibility be
+secured. And in the processes of Nature such direction or determination
+must be exercised in particulars inconceivably intricate, to which the
+works of man furnish no parallel. As Mr. Croll writes:
+
+     If a tree is to be formed, the lines of least resistance must all
+     be determined and adjusted in relation to the objective idea of the
+     tree; of the root; of the branches; of the leaves; of the bud; of
+     the fruit; and of every part of the tree. But this is not all: the
+     tree is built up molecule by molecule, each of which requires a
+     special determination, and, beyond all this, we have the
+     structureless protoplasm, which must be differentiated according to
+     the objective idea of the whole. What produces this marvellous
+     adjustment of means to ends?
+
+And as he insists in another passage:
+
+     The determinations which take place in nature occur not at random,
+     but according to a plan--an objective idea. Thus the question is
+     not simply what causes a body to take some direction, but what
+     causes it to take, among the infinite number of possible
+     directions, the proper direction in relation to the idea. In the
+     formation of, say, the leaf of a tree, no two molecules move in
+     identically the same direction or take identically the same path.
+     But each molecule must move in relation to the objective idea of
+     the leaf, or no leaf would be formed. The grand question,
+     therefore, is, What is it that selects from among the infinite
+     number of possible directions the proper one in relation to this
+     idea?
+
+And this sort of thing is going on in every blossom and leaf and blade
+of grass, in every hair and every feather over the surface of the earth.
+
+Truly does our author find here "The Grand Question," for in it we touch
+the very heart of our whole problem, and are forced to consider more
+closely than we have hitherto done of what character must be the
+ultimate Cause which alone can explain the world.
+
+It is, as we have seen, a first principle of Science, that in enquiries
+such as this, we must proceed from experience to inference, from the
+known to the unknown. Arguing thus, we may legitimately gather from
+observed phenomena, that something exists, which even though it be not
+directly within the range of our senses, must certainly be capable of
+producing such phenomena: just as the perturbations of one planet have
+revealed the existence of another; and the lines in their spectra have
+taught us the chemical constitution of the sun and stars.
+
+This principle being borrowed by Science from common-sense, has
+instinctively been ever adopted by those who set themselves to enquire
+of what kind must be that unseen Power at the back of Nature to which
+the fact of law and order may be ascribed. And as there is but one
+force or power within the range of our experience capable of producing
+such an effect, it is but natural that this should have been constantly
+assumed to represent, at least by analogy, the nature of the power
+required. That there is but one cause known to us experimentally, which
+can determine the operation of force towards the attainment of a
+preconditioned result, none will deny--namely the purposive action of an
+intelligent will, as known to us in ourselves and in our
+fellow-men;--and to Will accordingly, immensely more intelligent than
+ours, has been ascribed the establishment of those laws which the
+highest intellects of our race are able partially and dimly to
+apprehend.
+
+It is thus that we are led to the fundamental doctrine of Theism, to
+belief in an intelligent First Cause, according to whose design the
+universe has been fashioned; a cause which must have all that is found
+in the universe or any part of it, including man, and more--for it has
+of itself what all else derives from it--whose purposes necessarily
+transcend our mental grasp--but whose modes of thought are reflected in
+our own, by which they can in some measure be followed through a study
+of their results.
+
+If such a belief, so grounded, be unscientific, as is constantly
+assumed, there must be good arguments to the contrary. It should be
+demonstrable, either that Science has shown such a line of reasoning to
+be unsound, or that she has discovered within her own domain something
+which, at least conceivably, can do the work thus attributed to
+Intelligence--in which case the much-quoted dictum of Lord Kelvin will
+be in point,--that if a probable solution of any problem can be found
+which is consistent with the ordinary course of Nature, we must not go
+beyond Nature in search of one.
+
+If, on the other hand, the above line of reasoning cannot be
+invalidated, and if scientific methods can discover nothing competent to
+effect what has undoubtedly been effected, it is not easy to see how it
+can be unscientific to proceed by inference to what is confessedly
+beyond the scope of observation and experiment.
+
+That "Teleology," or the doctrine of Final Causality,[136] is unworthy
+of serious consideration, is without doubt a common assumption, and some
+writers seem to think that an argument is sufficiently discredited if it
+be styled "teleological." Yet this rather formidable term represents no
+more than the belief that the infinite adaptations of means to results
+observed in Nature are the effect of purpose, not of chance. And if we
+eliminate purpose, what is there left to furnish an explanation, beyond
+the indubitable fact that such adaptations have always been found in
+organic nature, and that we have learnt confidently to anticipate that
+they will appear generation after generation according to the "law of
+heredity"? But this obviously only tells us that they have been produced
+and are likewise transmitted, and throws no light whatever on the cause
+of the marvellous processes to which their production and their
+transmission are due. If we have any rational grounds for expecting that
+such processes will continue to occur, it cannot be merely that they
+have occurred before, but we instinctively infer that the cause to which
+they are ultimately due continues to operate. We are thus as far as ever
+from an answer to the question, What is that cause?
+
+     It may be urged [says Newman][137] if a thing happens once it must
+     happen always; for what is to hinder it? Nay, on the contrary, why,
+     because one particle of matter has a certain property, should all
+     particles have the same? Why, because particles have instanced the
+     property a thousand times, should the thousand and first instance
+     it also? It is _prima facie_ unaccountable that an accident should
+     happen twice, not to speak of it happening always. If we expect a
+     thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an
+     accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may
+     bring it about twice. _What_ is to hinder its happening? rather
+     what is to make it happen? Here we are thrown back from the
+     question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a
+     fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then we have no
+     experience of any cause but Will.
+
+Here is the crucial point: "We have no experience of any cause but
+Will;" and it follows that if, as Science bids us, we base inference on
+experience alone, there can be no doubt about the conclusion to which we
+shall be led.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+No different is the verdict of Sir John Herschel:
+
+     The presence of _Mind_ [he writes][138] is what solves the whole
+     difficulty: so far, at least, as it brings it within the sphere of
+     our consciousness, and into conformity with our own experience of
+     what action is.
+
+That the introduction of intelligent purpose, as a factor, sufficiently
+meets the requirements of our reason cannot be denied. As Bishop Butler
+insists, it is even impossible for any man in his senses to say that the
+problem can be more easily solved without it. And witnesses not merely
+unfriendly, but positively and even bitterly hostile, are compelled to
+admit that on whatever other grounds they may reject Theism, it is not
+because this doctrine is inadequate as an explanation of the world we
+know.
+
+     It seems to me [says Professor Huxley][139] that "creation," in the
+     ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no
+     difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe
+     was not in existence; and that it made its appearance ... in
+     consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being. The
+     so-called _à priori_ arguments against Theism, and given a Deity,
+     against the possibility of creative acts, appear to me to be devoid
+     of reasonable foundation.
+
+Similarly, that uncompromising foe of religious belief in any shape,
+Professor W. K. Clifford, replying to Dr. Martineau who based his
+argument on the existence of the moral law, as well as the evidence of
+design in Nature, wrote thus:[140]
+
+     I fully admit that the theistic hypothesis, so grounded, and
+     considered apart from objections elsewhere arising, is a reasonable
+     hypothesis and an explanation of the facts. The idea of an external
+     conscious being is unavoidably suggested, as it seems to me, by the
+     categorical imperative of the moral sense; and moreover in a way
+     quite independent, by the aspect of nature, which seems to answer
+     to our questionings with an intelligence akin to our own.
+
+On the other hand, where is an alternative hypothesis to be found of
+which as much can be said,--which will justify itself to reason, by
+accounting for the facts? That no purely materialistic or mechanical
+theory will suffice is not only obvious to common-sense, but is
+acknowledged by those who would gladly find such a theory sufficient.
+
+     It would be a great delusion [writes Weismann][141] if any one
+     were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the
+     universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical
+     principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal
+     matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual
+     need for causality.
+
+Similarly, Professor Huxley admits that even his primeval cosmic nebula
+with the world potential in its womb, leaves something to desire.
+
+     The more purely a mechanist the speculator is [he writes][142] the
+     more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of
+     which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and
+     the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,
+     who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular
+     arrangement was not[143] intended to evolve the phenomena of the
+     universe.
+
+Accordingly, although he was clearly persuaded that Theism is a doctrine
+which we can never have sufficient grounds for accepting, Professor
+Huxley repudiated the notion that scientific discovery has done anything
+to disprove it. Thus he tells us,[144] that, in order to be a
+teleologist, and yet accept Evolution, it is only necessary
+
+     to suppose that the original plan was sketched out ... that the
+     purpose was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out of which
+     the animals have come.
+
+And again,[145] he thus expressed himself regarding two objections
+commonly brought against Darwinism, namely that it introduces "chance"
+as a factor in nature, and that it is atheistic:
+
+     Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons believe in
+     "chance"; and the philosophical difficulties of Theism now are
+     neither greater nor less than they have been ever since Theism was
+     invented.
+
+Accordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we
+are precisely where men have always been,--dependent upon arguments such
+as satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard
+the starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence
+must appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.[146]
+
+That scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning,
+we have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose
+conclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found
+standing in the very front rank of Science.
+
+Like the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a
+Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from
+a study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a
+part of Natural Philosophy.[147]
+
+     We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and
+     Tait][148] the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and
+     Upholder of all things.
+
+     When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G.
+     Stokes,][149] it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to
+     be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But
+     design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study
+     then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a
+     Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things
+     that we behold.
+
+Lord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.[150]
+
+     I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither
+     affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms
+     creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an
+     article of belief.
+
+Thirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture
+before the British Association[151] thus spoke concerning Molecules:
+
+     They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and
+     measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed
+     on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in
+     measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we
+     reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they
+     are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning
+     created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of
+     which heaven and earth consist.
+
+It is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science
+who altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false,
+or at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That,
+however, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced
+as if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be
+determined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is
+abundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which
+influences the great majority of those who style themselves
+rationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be
+established they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as
+they are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can
+pretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely
+exploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such
+statements, that our witnesses have been called--and for this purpose
+their testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his
+Presidential address told the British Association:[152]
+
+     It is true that among scientific men, as in other classes, crude
+     views are to be met with as to the deeper things of Nature; but
+     that the life-long beliefs of Newton, of Faraday, and of Maxwell,
+     are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind, is surely a
+     proposition which I need not pause to refute.
+
+And when from authority we turn to the line of argument adopted by those
+who would impugn that upon which Theists rely, and who reject the idea
+of an intelligent First Cause either as superfluous, or as incapable of
+verification, we find but two courses one or other of which they feel
+themselves compelled to adopt, although it is not very easy to
+understand the state of mind which can rest satisfied with either.
+
+Some, on the one hand, frankly admit that Science has not by her own
+proper methods discovered any ultimate principle of things, and never
+will. But on that very account, they maintain, this ultimate principle,
+whatever it may be, must remain utterly unknown to us--for we can never
+_know_ anything except by the methods of Science. Accordingly, although
+the theistic hypothesis would confessedly furnish such an explanation as
+is lacking, we must not adopt it because we cannot test it
+experimentally.
+
+And yet in ordinary life we have no difficulty in arguing from effect to
+cause in just the same manner, and satisfying ourselves of the existence
+of what we can as little touch or see as the First Cause itself. Thus we
+are convinced of the genius of Shakespeare and Napoleon, and that there
+was a difference between the character of Robespierre and that of Howard
+the Philanthropist. But no man ever saw or touched either genius or
+character, which can be known only by their results. It is by inference
+far less legitimate that those proceed who, like Haeckel, seek in the
+forces of Nature themselves an explanation of phenomena which, as we
+know them, they are wholly incapable of producing. Instead of arguing
+that a cause must therefore exist which is beyond Nature, but whose
+character our own experience enables us in some measure, and
+analogically, to learn, these philosophers start with the assumption
+that no such cause is possible, and then proceed to draw the consequence
+that the condition of Nature must once have been totally different from
+what it actually is, enabling her forces to produce results which no
+experience of any sort indicates as possible.
+
+Those who adopt such an attitude of nescience, and in the proper sense
+of the word are termed Agnostics, find themselves compelled accordingly
+to leave their system in the air, with no basis more solid than the
+elephant and tortoise on which Hindoo astronomers rested the world. They
+must ignore the fundamental principle of Causation, from which we
+started our present enquiry, and in consequence it is impossible that
+their systems should, as Professor Weismann says, satisfy our
+intellectual needs.
+
+Others, on the other hand, declare that the Theistic hypothesis must be
+dismissed, because a better has been found, Science having discovered
+within her own sphere an effectual substitute for the supposed First
+Cause. When we enquire what this may be, we are told that it is the "Law
+of Substance," or "Evolution," or "Nature" herself, or an "Infinite
+Eternal Energy unknown and unknowable," but devoid of intellect and
+will--or "Monism," or some other similar abstraction which can represent
+no idea at all, unless--as often happens--it be clad in the robes of its
+rival, and credited with the very powers and attributes denied to the
+First Cause, so as to become practically the same thing under another
+and misleading name. Regarding this point there will be more to be said
+presently. Here, it will be sufficient to note that this is in truth the
+only meaning which can be attached to much of the language of so-called
+scientific writers.
+
+     Who [asks Mr. Wollaston][153] is this Nature ... who has such
+     tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
+     performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes when
+     dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent
+     abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of
+     an intelligent First Cause?
+
+So at the end of his life Clerk-Maxwell characteristically observed,
+that he had studied many queer religions and philosophies, but had
+found none of them that would work without God concealed somewhere.
+
+Finally, a warning uttered by Lord Rayleigh in the address quoted above
+must not be forgotten. After acknowledging that "unfortunately" there
+are writers speaking in her name who have set themselves to foster the
+prevailing belief that Science necessarily tends towards materialism, he
+thus continued:
+
+     It would be easy, however, to lay too much stress upon the opinions
+     of even such distinguished workers as these. Men who devote their
+     lives to investigation cultivate a love of truth for its own sake,
+     and endeavour instinctively to clear up, and not, as is too often
+     the object in business and politics, to obscure, a difficult
+     question. So far the opinion of a scientific worker may have a
+     special value; but I do not think that he has a claim superior to
+     that of other educated men, to assume the attitude of a prophet. In
+     his heart he knows that underneath the theories that he constructs
+     there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile. The higher
+     mysteries of being, if penetrable at all by the human intellect,
+     require other weapons than those of calculation and experiment.
+
+
+
+
+XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+
+An objection is no doubt awaiting us which many consider absolutely
+fatal to the argument for purpose or design in nature, as above
+presented. That argument, it will be said, rests entirely upon the
+assumption that the sole alternative to Purpose is _Chance_, an
+assumption which, if not dishonest, betrays ignorance scarcely less
+discreditable: for men of science constantly warn us that there is no
+such thing as Chance,--that every occurrence in nature, one as much as
+another, testifies to the uniformity and regularity of natural
+causation,--and that if we speak of any phenomenon being due to Chance,
+this term is but a conventional symbol signifying that we do not know
+what caused it.
+
+Amongst those who take up this position, which is well-nigh universal,
+no better representative need be sought than Professor Huxley, who
+treated the point formally, and was manifestly well satisfied with his
+performance. We have already heard him declare belief in Chance to be an
+absurdity of which none but parsons could be guilty, a class in which he
+clearly conceived the low-water-mark of intelligence to be reached. On
+another occasion,[154] he set himself expressly to the exposure of what
+he described as, "The most singular of the, perhaps immortal, fallacies,
+which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted
+them."
+
+     Probably the best answer [he writes] to those who talk of Darwinism
+     meaning the reign of "Chance," is to ask them what they themselves
+     understand by "Chance." Do they believe that anything in this
+     universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really
+     conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been
+     predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of
+     Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique
+     superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been
+     illumined by a ray of scientific thought.
+
+As an object lesson for his enlightenment, the Professor bids one of
+these benighted folk betake himself to the sea-shore on which a heavy
+storm is breaking; and having painted a rather elaborate word-picture of
+the scene, he thus continues:
+
+     Surely here, if anywhere, he [the unenlightened one] will say that
+     chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the
+     very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that
+     here as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not
+     a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a
+     rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary
+     consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a
+     sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent
+     physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,
+     every one of these "chance" events.
+
+This, however, is mere beating of the air, having no bearing whatever
+upon the question at issue; and we can only wonder that so able a man as
+Huxley could thus absolutely miss the whole point, while remaining
+serenely unconscious that he did so. No sane man ever entertained the
+foolish notion with which he credits his man of straw. On the contrary,
+it is precisely those whom he so heartily despises, that _dis_believe in
+Chance, and deny it any share in the making of the world. They neither
+regard Chance as a possible cause of phenomena, nor make of it a kind of
+deity or fetish, as some appear inclined to do with Science. Their
+contention is that according to those who, with Huxley, reject the idea
+of intelligent purpose, Chance would needs be introduced as a ruling
+element in nature, which would be absurd. Nor in thus arguing do they
+introduce any notion so irrational as that of "absolute" Chance, of
+events happening without causes. But unquestionably there can be
+"relative" Chance. A cause fully sufficient for the production of a
+result, may have no tendency whatever to determine or direct this result
+to a particular end; and if in such circumstances this end be attained
+it is by Chance. In particular, should many independent results of
+purely mechanical forces combine to produce a result, as intelligence
+would combine them, its production can only be ascribed to Chance.
+"Chance" has therefore a very real meaning. It is not a Cause, but the
+absence of Cause: not of Cause altogether, but of the _determining_
+Cause requisite for the production of certain results. The argument
+based upon the impotence of Chance to obtain such results, is precisely
+that which the most exact of all the Sciences, Mathematics, accepts and
+applies in the Theory of Chances.
+
+The answer to the question which Professor Huxley evidently deems
+unanswerable is plain enough. By "Chance" is meant the concurrence,
+unguided by Purpose, of independent forces to produce a definite effect.
+"Chance" denotes the absence of Purpose, as "Vacuum" denotes the absence
+of air; and when it is denied that certain results can come about by
+chance, or fortuitously, it is as when we deny that life can be
+sustained _in vacuo_. It is no positive feature or action of the vacuum
+that we have in mind, for its essence is negative; but just because of
+that negative character, experience has taught us, that it cannot fulfil
+certain functions. In the same manner the potency of "Chance" is denied,
+simply because it is not Purpose.
+
+That there are phenomena for which "Chance" thus defined cannot account
+is, surely, obvious. If a man sits down at a piano and plays "God Save
+the King," no evidence in the world would persuade Professor Huxley or
+any one else, that the performer had never before seen a musical
+instrument, nor knew of the existence of such an air or any other, but
+just put his fingers on the keys as the spirit moved him. Such a story
+would be rightly felt to be absolutely incredible: and yet the notes he
+produced--equally with those of the howling chorus of winds and
+waves--were the necessary effects of physical causes; given that
+particular strings were struck, they could not but follow. The whole
+point is, however, that in this case the result is _not_ a howling
+chorus, but a melody; not mere formless noise, but an orderly
+composition, constructed on definite principles which our mind can
+recognize. It is in regard of this particular feature of the result that
+Force of itself, as we have seen, explains nothing, and that, if there
+is to be any explanation at all, we must know something as to how Force
+received the needful Direction or Determination.
+
+It is only in regard of human action that we can, as in the above
+instance, find an example of what may be called pure fortuity, for such
+action alone can be traced up to an initial cause, namely the exercise
+of Will. No one can have a right to call the action of natural forces
+fortuitous; on the contrary, we have seen arguments that in the
+inorganic world itself purpose must be recognized. But an action
+directed by purpose to one result may be quite fortuitous in regard of
+another. A man who digging a foundation for a house finds a buried
+treasure, discovers this by chance. Although his action was ruled by a
+most definite purpose, that purpose was not this. So again when,
+according to the old story, certain Phœnician mariners finding no
+stones on the sea-shore suitable for the purpose, used blocks of natron
+to support their cooking-pots, and so produced glass, they were led to
+the discovery by mere chance. And in like manner, however definitely the
+forces of matter may be determined each to its own proper end, there are
+results which if produced by them must be as purely fortuitous as such
+an invention made by men who thought only of preparing their dinner. The
+cable which was being laid to America having, in 1865, snapped and sunk
+in mid-Atlantic, it was determined in the following year to attempt its
+recovery. Meanwhile the shore-end at Valencia was still connected with
+the dial-plate, on which messages had been scored between ship and shore
+while the cable was intact. A telegraphist was constantly on duty,
+watching the needle which was never still, being deflected hither and
+thither by the earth-currents, working through the wires. On a sudden,
+however, the needle spelled out the letters "Got it," and it was known
+with absolute certainty that there was a man at the other end. It is no
+doubt perfectly true that each previous movement had been the necessary
+consequence of the force applied, just as truly as those which coincided
+with the conventions of the telegraphist's alphabet; but win any one say
+that such coincidence could conceivably be attributable to the forces of
+magnetism alone, however exact to the laws according to which they
+operate?
+
+It must always be remembered that the question we have to discuss is,
+how far Science casts any light upon such questions as the one before
+us. And since "Science" is taken to mean knowledge acquired through the
+observation of phenomena alone, we have at present to enquire whether
+material forces, the only ones of which observation directly tells us
+anything, could have produced such effects as we have considered,
+otherwise than by mere "Chance"? If they could not, is it imaginable
+that they produced these effects at all? And it appears obvious that
+unless there be Purpose at the back of Nature, Chance must be
+acknowledged as the architect of the universe.
+
+Professor Huxley tells us, it is true, that such an idea could be
+entertained by no one whose mind had ever been illumined by a ray of
+scientific thought. In face of this it is rather remarkable to find that
+the idea was undoubtedly entertained by Mr. Darwin, who took for granted
+that to deny Purpose is to affirm Chance.
+
+     I am conscious [he wrote to Asa Gray][155] that I am in an utterly
+     hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is
+     the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing
+     as the result of Design.
+
+And again:[156]
+
+     I cannot any how be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
+     especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is
+     the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as
+     resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or
+     bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this
+     notion _at all_ satisfies me.
+
+Professor Haeckel too is by no means in accord on this point with his
+friend Professor Huxley. He writes:[157]
+
+     One group of philosophers affirms, in accordance with the
+     teleological conception, that the whole cosmos is an orderly
+     system, in which every phenomenon has its aim and purpose; there is
+     no such thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical
+     theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a
+     monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose
+     whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special
+     result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the
+     heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find
+     any trace of a controlling purpose--all is the result of chance.
+     Each party is right--according to its definition of chance. The
+     general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of
+     substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;
+     in this sense there is no such thing as chance. Yet it is not only
+     lawful, but necessary to retain the term for the purpose of
+     expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are
+     not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own
+     mechanical cause independent of the other. Everybody knows that
+     chance, in this monistic sense, plays an important part in the life
+     of man and in the universe at large. That, however, does not
+     prevent us from recognizing in each "chance" event, as we do in the
+     evolution of the entire cosmos, the universal sovereignty of
+     nature's supreme law, _the law of substance_.
+
+There is a good deal here which is less clear in the way of argument
+than could be wished. The famous _Law of Substance_, as we have seen,
+has two articles: The indestructibility of matter, and the conservation
+of energy. What light either of these principles may be supposed to shed
+on such questions as the adaptation of organs to their functions is by
+no means obvious. To say that there is no design in the organic world,
+because it is a special result of biological agencies,--is quite of a
+piece with the contention which has actually been made, that we can no
+longer argue to Design, with Paley, from the analogy of a watch, since
+"nearly every part of a watch is now made by inanimate machinery."[158]
+Thus much, however, is perfectly clear: the competence of Chance is
+recognized to originate a world like ours, and to enable Nature, as
+Professor Clifford says, seemingly to answer our questionings with an
+intelligence akin to our own.
+
+It would thus appear that when Newton asks,--Was the eye fashioned
+without knowledge of the laws of light, or the ear, without knowledge of
+those of sound?--we are to answer in the affirmative, and to say that
+such organs are but special results of biological agencies, under the
+general management of the Law of Substance.
+
+That such a reply cannot with any truth be termed scientific is
+plain--for it touches matters which by her own acknowledgment Science
+cannot reach;--nor does it seem probable that this kind of talk would
+convince anybody, were there nothing more. Undoubtedly those who
+persuade themselves that the Order of the Universe can be sufficiently
+explained without introducing the idea of purpose or design, are
+influenced by other considerations than these.
+
+(1) With some it is the argument, which appears chiefly to have weighed
+with Mr. Darwin, who constantly speaks of it as the great obstacle to
+that belief in Design which the marvels of the universe would otherwise
+necessitate. This he based on certain features in Nature which appeared
+to him incompatible with the work of a beneficent Author, mainly the
+existence of suffering amongst animals in whose case it cannot be
+supposed to subserve any purpose of moral benefit. As he wrote to Asa
+Gray:[159]
+
+     I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should
+     wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.
+     There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
+     myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
+     created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
+     feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat
+     should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in
+     the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
+
+Such a mode of meeting the arguments for Design, though only indirect,
+undoubtedly deserves serious consideration, touching as it does the
+darkest of all mysteries--the Origin of Evil. It is clear, however, that
+in Mr. Darwin's case, and probably in that of many others, its effect
+was due in no slight degree to imagination rather than to reason. He
+picks out one or two instances of seeming cruelty in Nature, as though
+they were something exceptional, and appears to imply that they create
+an obstacle to a belief which Nature as a whole almost forces upon him.
+In reality, the same sort of thing goes on everywhere. Animal life from
+beginning to end is a record of rapine and slaughter, as Tennyson
+declared in a verse too trite to bear quotation. The most petted of pet
+dogs has no more compunction than a tiger in worrying creatures weaker
+than itself, and a robin-redbreast takes far more lives daily than does
+a sparrow-hawk. But to draw from these facts such large conclusions--is
+quite another matter. Can we imagine that we are qualified by the
+fulness of our knowledge to pronounce judgment and declare that there
+can be no good end where we fail to perceive one? As Mr. Darwin admits
+in the very same passage: "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
+too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on
+the mind of Newton."
+
+How much is there in the actions of persons much lowlier than Newton
+which to the most intelligent of animals, dogs, elephants, or monkeys,
+could they speculate at all, must seem wholly devoid of sense;--as for
+instance that men should spend such continual labour in digging and
+ploughing. So again, in his famous lecture on Coal, Professor Huxley
+depicts what might have been the reflections of a giant reptile of the
+Carboniferous Epoch, suggested by the seemingly senseless waste of
+nature's powers in the production of the primeval forests, that have
+furnished the coal measures, to which so much of our progress and
+civilization is directly due.
+
+And, after all, given the universal law of death for all living things,
+it would hardly appear that we can assure ourselves that any attendant
+circumstance constitutes a greater evil--as Mr. Darwin's argument seems
+to assume; and yet, it does not appear ever to have been argued that
+there can be no purpose in Nature since no organic life endures for
+ever. Most probably, if we knew enough, we should plainly see that
+nothing could be more cruel than to have omitted the carnivora from
+creation, leaving herbivorous animals to multiply till they starved one
+another to death, or at least to perish of senile decay far more
+painfully than under the fangs of tigers and wolves. Instances might
+moreover be quoted which serve to remind us how impossible it is rightly
+to estimate the true character of suffering amongst creatures altogether
+different from ourselves. Thus when, as eye-witnesses report, young
+scorpions clinging to their mother devour her alive, scientifically
+avoiding as long as possible all vital parts and mortal wounds--we are
+inclined to consider them monsters of wickedness, and their parent as a
+model of motherly devotion, whose sufferings cannot be less horrible
+than those of a caterpillar similarly eaten by the ichneumon grub. But
+we cannot with any reason impute more moral blame to the young
+scorpions, than to the lambkins which draw sustenance from their dams in
+another fashion which we find touching and poetical; while as for the
+mother--who doubtless treated her own parent in just the same
+fashion--she exhibits no symptom to show that she resents her
+offsprings' advances, any more than does the ewe, but on the contrary
+has her sting ever ready for any one who would interfere with them.
+
+(2) It is a still more common objection to the doctrine of purpose
+everywhere in Nature, that such an idea is negatived by the continuity
+and uniformity of natural laws, precluding the notion of constant
+interference by another, supernatural, Agent. But this objection is
+based upon an entire misconception. No one imagines such intervention,
+or that purpose guides nature as a pilot guides a ship by repeated
+orders to the man at the wheel. Undoubtedly the reign of law in nature
+is uninterrupted, but in that law purpose is interwoven as the
+controlling element; just as the mind of Homer governs the hand of every
+printer who sets up type for a new edition of the _Iliad_.
+
+(3) Finally, there is the argument, already alluded to, that inasmuch as
+the most complex structures are daily transmitted under our eyes by
+generation, we have evidence that nature can produce them from her own
+resources, and by the operation of a merely natural law, such as no one
+doubts generation to be.
+
+Such an argument, it is evident, merely begs the question at issue,
+offering as it does no explanation, or suggestion, as to how a power so
+marvellous was acquired. It would be equally philosophical to argue that
+there is nothing wonderful about the genius of a great poet because we
+confidently anticipate that it will be exhibited in the next piece he
+produces.
+
+It is likewise clear that, here again, imagination rather than reason
+furnishes the argument. In the first place, were there nothing else, no
+explanation whatever would thus be afforded as to how the structures in
+question were first produced, before they could be transmitted. And,
+secondly, which is still more important, generation--far from furnishing
+an explanation of anything--introduces us to mysteries yet more
+inscrutable than any we have yet encountered, and to problems which
+seem to admit of no possible solution apart from, not only Purpose, but
+transcendent Power.
+
+Doubtless the propagation of life is ruled by natural law, but how such
+law effects its object we understand immeasurably less than we
+understand the flight of birds or butterflies. As a recent writer
+reminds us,[160] what is transmitted from parents to offspring "is not a
+new form or structure, but only the _potentiality_ of such a new form:
+which, in suitable circumstances, builds _itself_ up out of surrounding
+inorganic and organic material." As Lord Grimthorpe expresses the same
+truth:[161]
+
+     If we suppose an apple-tree to have once grown somehow, and to have
+     somehow got power to produce seeds, that would not produce any more
+     apple-trees, unless the seeds, and all the adjacent atoms that are
+     wanted, had the power and the will to combine and grow into another
+     apple-tree. The first hen that laid an egg performed a wonderful
+     feat enough, but it would have done no good unless the atoms of the
+     egg also knew and resolved what to do to turn themselves into a
+     chicken. Yet spontaneous evolutionists are in the habit of slurring
+     over generation as a thing too "natural," and therefore too easy
+     and simple to require explanation.
+
+The continual operation of a law such as this, certainly does not remove
+mysteries, nor make it more easy to understand how the order and the
+marvels of the universe can rationally be attributed to Chance rather
+than to Design, according to "this new philosophy of effects without
+causes and laws without a lawgiver."[162] For "fortuitous" means, as
+Professor Case has well observed,[163] not the accidental, as opposed to
+the regular laws of nature, but the spontaneous necessity of nature, as
+opposed to the voluntary designs of intelligence. Nor is it only in the
+organic world that we find the need of such a factor to explain
+phenomena; for it is throughout more essential than any other force to
+account for Nature as we find her--in such a manner as to satisfy the
+logical demands of our mind. We learn as little from observation and
+experiment as to the fundamental laws of matter,--gravitation, for
+instance, which Faraday and Herschel termed "the mystery of mysteries,"
+or chemical affinities, or the nature of Ether--as concerning anything
+in organic nature; though in the latter we undoubtedly mount to a higher
+plane of mysteriousness. And in either case we could learn nothing
+whatever,--that is to say, Science would be wholly impossible,--did we
+not find natural phenomena respond to our enquiries with what seems an
+intelligence akin to our own. And accordingly it appears but
+reasonable,--that is to say, truly scientific,--to exclaim as did even
+Diderot--"Quoi! le monde formé prouverait moins une intelligence que le
+monde expliqué!"
+
+
+
+
+XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+
+All systems of philosophy that reject the idea of an intelligent First
+Cause, which alone is self-existent, and whose being is of a higher
+order than that of aught else,--base their denial on the assumption that
+no such distinction of nature either exists or is possible,--that there
+is but one reality, namely the substance whereof the sensible world
+consists,--that this has always existed with the same forces it has now,
+and that it is the source of all phenomena. This assumption of the
+unreality of whatever is beyond the scope of sense, which has ever been
+at the bottom of materialistic systems, is now elaborately formulated as
+a creed, declared by Professor Haeckel and his following to be the only
+creed which science can tolerate. This is termed _Monism_,--from the
+Greek Μὁνος, "single," and is opposed to _Dualism_, or the
+doctrine that there are two orders of being, or two distinct substances,
+material and spiritual.[164]
+
+According to monistic teaching, therefore, there exists but one _Thing_,
+that which we usually call Matter, but might equally well call
+Mind,--for all phenomena whatever, whether mental or material, are but
+various shapes which it assumes, exhibiting diverse aspects of itself.
+Thus all the objects which appear to have a being of their own,--as the
+globe we inhabit, the furniture of earth and heaven, we ourselves,--are
+but the forms momentarily assumed by this protean entity in its
+ceaseless transfigurations, and have no more existence of their own than
+the ripples on a pool of water or the faces we see in the fire. It
+follows that when the particular phase of this basic substance is ended
+which brings us into being, (or rather which we _are_,) we like
+everything else, sink into blank nothing,--so that the mighty dead whom
+nations honour, or the loved ones whose memory we cherish, are blotted
+out of existence as utterly as the days and nights which made up the
+span of their lives. But amongst its permutations and combinations this
+solitary reality can produce the phenomena which we call thought, just
+as much as those which we call motion, and accordingly the _Aeneid_ or
+_Hamlet_ is its work, a mechanical product of evolution, no less than a
+seam of coal, or an eclipse of the moon.
+
+Such, in outline, is the philosophical system which commends itself, as
+Professor Haeckel assures us,[165] to all men of science, who combine
+the necessary conditions, of scientific knowledge, mental acumen, moral
+courage, and intellectual independence. It may be rightly described as
+materialistic pantheism; for while, according to it, everything is
+equally divine, in the only sense in which anything can be so,
+everything is likewise equally material, as falling under the category
+of what we know as matter, and within the direct cognizance of physical
+science.
+
+Accurately to sketch a doctrine such as this is a task of no slight
+difficulty. It undoubtedly contradicts the instinctive teaching of our
+consciousness, so that, as Professor Haeckel admits[166] in the
+primitive stages of both religion and philosophy Monism is unknown.
+Moreover, even those who most loudly profess it, have by no means as yet
+succeeded in realizing their own system, and after having from time to
+time formally enunciated its articles, proceed forthwith to ignore them,
+and in the staple of their discourse speak like other men in terms which
+have no meaning if the tenets of their creed have any. As a natural
+result their exposition of monistic doctrine is not very easy of
+apprehension, but it seems to be not unfairly reflected in the above
+summary.
+
+Professor Haeckel himself thus expounds "that unifying conception of
+nature as a whole which we designate in a single word as Monism."[167]
+
+     By this we unambiguously express our conviction that there lives
+     "one spirit in all things," and that the whole cognizable world is
+     constituted, and has been developed, in accordance with one common
+     fundamental law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential
+     unity of inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been
+     evolved from the former only at a comparatively late period. We
+     cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between these two great
+     divisions of nature, any more than we can recognize an absolute
+     distinction between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, or
+     between the lower animals and man. Similarly, we regard the whole
+     of human knowledge as a structural unity; in this sphere we refuse
+     to accept the distinction usually drawn between the natural and the
+     spiritual. The latter is only a part of the former (or _vice
+     versâ_); both are one. Our monistic view of the world belongs,
+     therefore, to that group of philosophical systems which from other
+     points of view have been designated also as mechanical or as
+     pantheistic.
+
+More concisely and clearly, Professor Romanes tells us:[168]
+
+     Mental phenomena and physical phenomena, although apparently
+     diverse, are really identical.
+
+And in a work recently issued for the express purpose of expounding and
+diffusing the new gospel, we read:[169]
+
+     Just as the same particles of matter may at one time form parts of
+     a rose, and at another time parts of a mushroom, so the same force
+     may at one time strike a church as lightning, and at another time
+     may be the mother-love that rocks the cradle.
+
+If such conceptions are not easy to grasp, there can be no doubt as to
+the practical conclusions to which they lead. We have already heard from
+Professor Haeckel that human freedom is an utter delusion. We have
+likewise seen that the only term in prospect is utter annihilation,
+which Professor Haeckel endeavours to persuade us is the consummation we
+ought to wish.
+
+"The best we can desire," he says,[170] "after a courageous life, spent
+in doing good according to our light, is the eternal peace of the grave.
+'Lord give them an eternal rest.'"
+
+It is evident however that in order to secure such a reward it is not
+necessary to show any courage, or attempt any sort of good-work, for
+according to him it equally awaits the most selfish and abandoned
+voluptuary.
+
+Finally,[171]
+
+     At our death there disappears only the individual form in which the
+     nerve-substance was fashioned, and the personal "soul" which
+     represented the work performed by this. The complicated chemical
+     combinations of that nervous mass pass over into other
+     combinations--by decomposition, and the kinetic energy produced by
+     them is transformed into other forms of nature.
+
+      Imperial Cæsar, dead and turned to clay,
+      Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.--
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+which lines others besides Haeckel are fond of quoting on this subject
+as if they had any possible connexion with it. It would be more to the
+point, and far more interesting, were some indication afforded of the
+chemical equivalent of the qualities which made Cæsar imperial, or those
+which distinguished the author of the above lines from the bards of our
+Music Halls. That, when a man is no more, his material part may serve
+various material purposes, is no more than was known to the first savage
+who made a drum with his enemy's skin, or used his skull for a
+drinking-cup.
+
+As has been said, the Monistic philosophy claims to be above all things
+scientific, and upon this ground are we bidden to accept it. But what is
+the meaning of this claim? The one argument, apart from mere assertion,
+brought to show that spirit is not distinct from matter, is drawn from
+the part undoubtedly played by the brain in the process of thought,
+though we see far less in this, as in other connexions, than the
+assertions made by unscientific writers might lead us to imagine. But
+when all this is most fully acknowledged can it be said that the state
+of the question is changed from what it was? To listen to Monists, it
+might be supposed that the intimate connexion between soul and body is
+a new discovery, undreamt of in former ages,--and that we have now
+arrived at a demonstration that it is our material part that actually
+does our thinking. But, as a matter of fact, like other fundamental
+questions, this is exactly as it has ever been, and so far as Science is
+concerned, we are just as much in the dark respecting it as men ever
+were. Though the philosophers of former days were unaware of all the
+departmental details of brain activity, they understood as well as we do
+the essential point, that in our composite nature soul and body form
+_one_ being, whose every operation is of mixed character like itself.
+The soul alone is the intelligent principle, yet all objects of
+knowledge must come to it through sense, and in the senses it can be
+reached only by the mechanical media of light, or sound, or touch. So
+firm was their grip of this principle that the Schoolmen styled the soul
+the "substantial form" of the body, and in their mouth this term
+expressed a union more essential and intimate than modern philosophers
+can perhaps imagine.
+
+And, on the other hand, have all the results of modern research brought
+anything to light which tends to show that matter can by any possibility
+_think_? We are assured on the contrary, upon unimpeachable authority,
+that however we may succeed in tracing the mechanical processes of
+sensation to their furthest limit, it remains absolutely inconceivable
+to us how the gulf is crossed that lies between this and rational
+perception. So Professor Tyndall tells us:[172]
+
+     The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding
+     facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite
+     thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur
+     simultaneously, we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor
+     apparently any rudiments of an organ, which would enable us to pass
+     by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear
+     together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so
+     expanded as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the
+     brain, were we capable of following all their motions, all their
+     groupings and electrical discharges, if such there be, and were we
+     intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and
+     feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the
+     problem--"How are these physical processes connected with the facts
+     of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes remains still
+     intellectually impassable.
+
+With these views Professor Huxley[173] expresses his agreement, and
+although he contrives to confuse the issue very considerably, as is not
+unusual when he undertakes to philosophize, he lays down in the clearest
+possible terms that nothing whatever is _known_ as to the connexion of
+mechanical processes with thought, whence it follows that on this point
+Science has nothing to tell us.
+
+"I really know nothing whatever [he writes] and never hope to know
+anything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to
+states of consciousness is effected."
+
+It should be needless to repeat that if nothing is known regarding all
+this, it is mere charlatanism to pretend that Science tells us anything
+about it, and those who make such assertions use words to which no
+meaning can attach. Unfortunately such a practice is far from uncommon
+in connexion with these questions. What sense can there be conceivable
+in the well-known materialistic doctrine that the brain secretes
+thought, just as the proper organs secrete bile or saliva? Bile and
+saliva are material substances, with a definite chemical constitution,
+each adapted to one definite function. But, Thought! It would be as
+intelligible to talk of secreting the British Constitution, the Steam
+Engine, and the Differential Calculus.
+
+So much for the sole basis of Monistic argument. When we turn to some
+other considerations it certainly becomes no easier to understand the
+claim of Monism to be scientific. In the first place, as we have seen,
+in order to furnish the system with any semblance of truth, it has been
+found necessary to attribute to the ultimate elements of matter
+qualities which all our experience denies them; for Professor Haeckel
+has told us that "the two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable
+matter and ether, are not dead, and only moved by extrinsic force, but
+they are endowed with sensation and will." Of such attributes, and that
+of self-mobility, it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been
+said already. Assuredly nothing can look less like the great ultimate
+reality, of whose ceaseless metamorphoses, we are but a flitting phase,
+than the material substances with which we can do what we like,
+investigating their laws, exploring their constitution, and setting them
+tasks which we know exactly how they will accomplish.
+
+Another point in the same connexion is no less important. What is this
+one _Thing_, this Ultimate and Solitary Self-existent Reality, from
+which Monism takes its title? Professor Haeckel has told us of two
+fundamental forms of substance,--ponderable matter and ether. These he
+evidently supposes, as his creed requires, to be radically the same: but
+what right has he to take such a supposition for a fact? and unless this
+unity be a fact, what becomes of Monism? What has Science ever
+discovered that can justify any one in speaking of Ether and Matter as
+one and the same? How, then, can a theory that assumes their identity be
+termed "scientific?"
+
+Or, leaving Ether alone, "that half-discovered entity," as Lord
+Salisbury styled it on a famous occasion, and restricting our attention
+to ponderable matter, concerning which we know a little more,--how can
+even this be spoken of as "One"? As we have seen already it is only by a
+figure of speech that the term "Matter" can be used at all. It stands
+not for a single thing, but for countless millions and billions of
+atoms, dispersed through space, some of one kind some of another, no one
+of which can be imagined to owe its existence or its properties to any
+other. To say that matter is self-existent is to say that every several
+atom is self-existent. If this be so, and if this be the ultimate
+Reality,--then there are as many first principles, or first causes, as
+there are atoms. Yet none of these could do anything to the purpose
+towards the evolution of anything, without the concurrence of a
+multitude of others, nor would such concurrence be possible but for the
+reign of law, which none of them can have instituted, but to which all
+alike are subject. Were matter the great reality, even matter composed
+of "animated atoms," the term _Monism_ would be sadly out of keeping,
+and should yield its place to _Myriadism_. If, on the other hand, there
+_is_ a unifying principle amid such diversity, this it must be which can
+control and direct all to one end.
+
+It is undoubtedly hard to understand how the First Principle of all
+things can be supposed to consist of Atoms, but this is one of the
+perplexities in which monistic doctrines abound. That atoms _are_, so
+far as we know, the ultimate constituents of the Fundamental Reality,
+Professor Haeckel admits. It is true, he adds, that our knowledge of
+these ultimate elements is still far from satisfying, and he likewise
+anticipates that atoms will someday be discovered not really to be
+ultimate, but forms of something, more primal still.
+
+     Although [he says][174] Monism is on the one hand for us an
+     indispensable and fundamental conception in science, and although,
+     on the other hand, it strives to carry back all phenomena, without
+     exception, to the mechanism of the atom, we must nevertheless still
+     admit that as yet we are by no means in a position to form any
+     satisfactory conception of the exact nature of these atoms, and
+     their relation to the general space-filling, universal ether.
+     Chemistry long ago succeeded in reducing all the various natural
+     substances to combinations of a relatively small number of
+     elements; and the most recent advances of that science have made it
+     in the highest degree probable that these elements ... are
+     themselves in turn only different combinations of a varying number
+     of atoms of one single original element. But in all this we have
+     not as yet obtained any further light as to the real nature of
+     these original atoms or their primal energies.
+
+From which it is clear, that, while the considerations above presented
+lose none of their force, the Monistic system, by the avowal of its
+chief apostle, is based on complete ignorance concerning all which could
+furnish it with a foundation.
+
+But by far the most serious consideration yet remains. If, according to
+Monistic teaching men are but bubbles on the surface of reality, and are
+inevitably carried as it wills,--there is an end of all distinction
+between good and evil, right and wrong, merit and guilt. One man, or one
+line of conduct, is as good, or as bad, as another, being all equally
+the products of Evolution, and aspects of the great Monistic
+principle;--"Jack the Ripper," and Socrates, Messalina and Queen
+Victoria, Chief Justice Scroggs and Sir Thomas More, are none of them in
+any possible sense one whit better or worse than the others,--inasmuch
+as they all did but act as puppets actuated by one and the same
+original, playing its own part in them all.
+
+And in like manner as regards Truth. It must follow that a man's
+beliefs, like his actions, are as much beyond his own control as his
+stature or the colour of his hair. If Professor Haeckel calls Monism
+supreme wisdom, and I call it nonsense, we are equally right, for each
+is the mouthpiece of the same one all-embracing first-principle. What
+each believes is the only thing possible for him to believe, and, so far
+as he is concerned, is the only truth.
+
+But here comes in a perplexity. If such be the case, if there be no
+Free-will, and no possibility whatever of doing or believing anything
+but what is predetermined for us as a necessary part of our
+being,--where is the sense of all the strenuous efforts that are being
+made to convert the people to a belief which, according to its own
+principles, nothing in the world can make them accept, unless nothing in
+the world can prevent them from accepting it? What again is the meaning
+of organizations, such as we hear of, for giving ethical instruction to
+the young on a Monistic and determinist basis? What can be the possible
+sense of giving ethical lectures to young people, if it is really
+believed that the course of each is marked out for him more rigorously
+than the path of a city omnibus? "If" said Professor Paul Darnley in Mr.
+Mallock's clever satire,--"If we would be solemn, and high, and happy,
+and heroic, and saintly, we have but to strive and struggle to do what
+we cannot for an instant avoid doing,"--namely, conform to the laws of
+matter. If Monists were to limit their aspirations to this, their
+teaching would at least be intelligible. It ceases to be so, when they
+feel compelled to graft on their Monistic stock the Dualistic notions of
+Right and Wrong, Truth and Error. But, as Dr. Johnson said respecting
+Free-will, no one ever believes the arguments on the other side, however
+loudly he may profess to do so. And in the same way it is quite clear
+that no Monist can get himself really to accept Monism.[175]
+
+
+
+
+XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+
+We have now considered the question of Evolution in the larger and more
+fundamental signification of the term to which, as we noted at starting,
+very different meanings are attached; and at this stage of our
+discussion it will be convenient to sum up the main conclusions at which
+we have arrived.
+
+It is, in the first place, unwarrantable to pretend that the discoveries
+of modern Science, brilliant and marvellous as they undoubtedly are,
+have thrown any light upon the origin of the Material Universe, or of
+its forces, or of the laws according to which its operations proceed.
+Nor has Science anything to tell as to the origin of life, of sensation,
+or of reason. Nothing as yet discovered by her, or which she can discern
+any prospect of discovering, adds aught to our knowledge regarding such
+points as these.
+
+Therefore, to say that the doctrine of Evolution as affirmed by Science,
+explains the existence of the world we know, is untrue and unscientific.
+
+Moreover, we have seen that, as a factor without which the Order of
+Nature is unintelligible, the First Cause to which her existence is
+owing must be possessed of Intelligence, determining her processes
+according to its purposes. Hence it follows that no system of philosophy
+satisfies our reason which would find the ultimate explanation of all
+things in the forces of matter themselves which it is the province of
+Science to investigate.
+
+On the other hand, in maintaining that Purpose must needs have acted, we
+do not assume to pronounce as to the manner of its action. To say that
+Purpose rules every detail in the making or development of the universe,
+does not by any means signify that it interferes at every step with the
+laws of Nature. Rather, these laws are the expression of Purpose,--its
+machinery to secure its designed result. Assuming, for instance, the
+primeval existence of Professor Huxley's cosmic nebula, so constituted
+that the actual world was bound naturally to issue from it, as does a
+chicken from an egg, or an oak from an acorn,--while we find it
+inconceivable that such a piece of mechanism should originate without an
+intelligence to design it,--we have no difficulty in supposing that
+intelligence to have exhibited itself once for all at the first
+beginning, and to have fashioned the actual world by shaping the causes
+or conditions by which it was to be produced, thus making everything,
+not directly and immediately but as St. Augustine held "_causaliter et
+seminaliter_."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+There remains for consideration Evolution in its narrower sense, in
+which its operations are restricted to organic nature, such Evolution
+being commonly, but incorrectly, identified with "Darwinism." Understood
+thus, "Evolution" signifies no more than that the various species of
+animals and plants have descended _genetically_ one from another,
+through a graduated series of intermediate forms which link them
+together. _Darwinism_ is one particular mode of explaining how such
+transformations may be accounted for,--namely, by what is known as
+"Natural Selection." The theory of Evolution, as thus concerned with
+Organic life in particular, is compendiously described as
+"Transformism," under which head Darwinism is evidently included.
+
+Transformism makes no pretence to account for the origin of life,
+whether animal or vegetable. Living things must exist before any
+question arises as to their transmutation. But, given the existence of
+life, Transformists undertake in the first place to show that Organic
+Evolution has, as a matter of fact, occurred, and is still in process of
+occurrence; and secondly, to exhibit the manner in which this process is
+actually worked out. As to the first point, all Transformists, whether
+Darwinians or others, are necessarily at one, for the fact of Evolution
+is equally essential for every explanation of its method. It is when
+they come to explain in what manner evolutionary transformations have
+been wrought that Transformists divide themselves into various schools,
+each of which relies upon some particular factor to furnish the required
+explanation. Thus besides Darwinians pure and simple, there are
+neo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, neo-Lamarckians, Weismannists, and others,
+ascribing the results to physiological selection, sexual-selection, or
+other forces, rather than natural selection. Of such systems, however,
+excepting only Darwinism, it will be unnecessary to speak in particular.
+The great fundamental question is whether genetic Evolution be really
+established as a fact,--which, as has been said, equally affects them
+all--and if it be advisable to treat more in detail of Darwinism, it is
+not because this does not hold good of it as of the rest--but because
+this particular system has obtained such a position, is so much in the
+mouths of men, and has been made the basis of so many and such
+far-reaching consequences, that it is impossible to pass it by.
+
+Much the same may indeed be said even of the assumed fact of Organic
+Evolution underlying all Transformist theories. This does not affect the
+fundamental problems with which we are concerned, and leaving untouched,
+as it does, the question of the origin of Life it makes even less
+pretence than the cosmic-nebular hypothesis just spoken of to trace the
+operations of Nature to their ultimate source. It might therefore appear
+superfluous to devote to it so much attention as, if treated at all, it
+must needs demand.
+
+But, whatever may thus appear from the point of view of strict logic, it
+is abundantly evident that in common estimation the assumed fact of
+Organic transformation is the foundation-stone of Evolutionary systems
+of every kind. And not unnaturally; for here at last we have something
+with which Science can deal, strictly according to her own methods. If
+she knows, and can know, nothing from actual observation concerning the
+first beginnings of matter, of the cosmic nebula, or of life, it is
+quite otherwise with the history of living things since they first
+appeared, and with the phenomena of life as it exists and is propagated.
+Here are questions which are strictly scientific, forming the
+subject-matter of Palæontology and Biology, and these Sciences
+supplemented by others, such as Geology, Physical Geography, and
+Astronomy, furnish a mass of evidence bearing upon the subject of
+Organic Evolution. When therefore the great majority of men of Science,
+declare that the fact of genetic Transformism is established beyond the
+possibility of doubt, Evolutionists find themselves supplied with a
+plausible foothold on which to stand and rest their fulcrum, while, like
+Archimedes, they proceed to move the world.
+
+That men of Science generally thus agree, cannot be questioned, and
+although this agreement is by no means so universal as is popularly
+supposed, there is no doubt that were the question to be settled by
+enumeration of the authorities on either side, Transformism would win
+easily. It may also be freely acknowledged, that Transformism in general
+and Darwinism in particular are theories to which on _à priori_ grounds
+no exception need be taken, and that, so far at least as concerns their
+general scope, apart from the origin of Man, no one can reasonably
+start with a prepossession against them. Nay, we will go farther, and
+say that to our way of thinking it appears immensely more probable, that
+things should always have gone on as they go on now, by the operation of
+the same natural laws, and that specific forms should have been
+naturally produced, as individuals of a species are produced now, by
+generation,--rather than that not only repeated acts of specific
+creation, but any operations totally different from those we witness,
+should have occurred to interrupt, and as we should judge, to mar, the
+Law of Continuity.
+
+All this is true. But we are engaged on a scientific enquiry,--and if
+there be one principle more than another upon which Science insists, it
+is that we should prove all things, not by authority, but by
+evidence,--and that we should seek evidence, not in pre-conceived ideas
+as to what should be, but in observation of what is. Accordingly, while
+we are most ready to accept Transformism or Darwinism should we find
+solid reasons for doing so, we are bound, for the sake of Science, to
+demand unimpeachable proofs before subscribing to doctrines which are
+made responsible for so much.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Before proceeding farther it will be necessary to exhibit more in detail
+the exact character of the question we have to discuss.
+
+According to the celebrated "Formula" of Mr. Herbert Spencer--"Evolution
+is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;
+during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent
+homogeneity, to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and
+during which the contained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."
+It would be interesting to know what idea this definition conveys to
+many of those who are in the habit of quoting it, but, so far as organic
+Evolution is concerned, it must mean that whereas in the earlier and
+lower forms of life one organ performed many different functions in an
+imperfect manner, evolutionary development has gradually produced higher
+forms, in which each function has its special organ, by which it is more
+perfectly discharged. As an extreme instance of the former condition,
+the Hydra has but two organs, an outside which respires, and an inside
+which digests. If it be turned inside out these functions are reversed;
+the skin becoming the stomach, and the stomach the skin. Thus Evolution
+has been an ascending process from the lower to the higher, from the
+less to the more organized.
+
+Such, it must be added, has undoubtedly been the course of life. Amongst
+plants and animals alike, it began with lower and simpler forms, after
+which succeeded in due order others more developed and elaborately
+organized, the order in which they came upon the scene being much the
+same as that in which we should naturally arrange their specimens in a
+museum. Thus in the vegetable kingdom, first came such growths as
+sea-weeds and fungi, followed by ferns and club-mosses,--yews and
+pines,--and so through grasses, canes, and palms, to the highest group
+in which are included our forest trees and the bulk of our garden
+flowers. In like manner, the animal series,--to mention only leading
+groups of which evidence is found,--starting with almost structureless
+_Protozoa_, followed by such forms as starfish and sponges, worms,
+molluscs and crustaceans, has advanced to vertebrate creatures--fishes,
+amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,--and finally to man.
+
+Thus, in a quite intelligible sense, there has certainly been Evolution,
+or development,--that is to say, an orderly progression from lower types
+to higher, throughout the history of life on earth, from its
+commencement to the present time. But, this is not the point. Was such
+Evolution or development _genetic_? Was it wrought by descent with
+modification of form from form? _That_ is what we have to enquire. If
+this has not been so, there has been no Evolution in the sense intended
+by Evolutionists.
+
+According to their highest authority, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Evolution
+means "the production of all organic forms by the accumulation of
+modifications and of divergences by the addition of differences to
+differences."
+
+     Beyond all question [he adds] unlikenesses of structure gradually
+     arise among the members of successive generations. We find that
+     there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the
+     source of specific differences, a process which, though slow, does,
+     in time, produce changes--a process which to all appearance would
+     produce in millions of years any amount of changes.[176]
+
+The Transformist doctrine is, therefore, that one species of plants or
+animals, has in natural course grown out of another, through the
+aggregation of changes each exceedingly minute. Darwinism adds that the
+ruling principle of this process is Natural Selection. These are the
+points on which our enquiry turns, and we may conveniently commence with
+the second.
+
+
+
+
+XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+
+It must first be observed that special consideration of Mr. Darwin's
+theory is rendered necessary even more imperatively on account of the
+claims advanced on his behalf by others, than of those to which he
+himself made any pretence. Without question the idea prevails almost
+universally, that he has furnished a scientific explanation of all
+organic phenomena through the operation of purely natural laws, and has
+thus rendered obsolete the idea that any power beyond Nature is required
+in order to account for the totality of things, or that there are any
+features of the world which indicate the operation of intelligent
+purpose.
+
+That such ideas should be widely prevalent amongst those who, having no
+special acquaintance with the subject, must depend for their knowledge
+on the popularizers of Science, is scarcely wonderful, for such
+teachers, with scarcely an exception, so declare, and occasionally real
+men of Science lend the weight of their authority to similar
+statements.
+
+It will be sufficient to cite Professor Haeckel, who writes thus:[177]
+
+     It seemed to Kant so impossible to explain the orderly processes in
+     the living organism without postulating super-natural final causes
+     (that is, a purposive creative force) that he said, "It is quite
+     certain that we cannot even satisfactorily understand, much less
+     elucidate, the nature of an organism and its internal faculty on
+     purely mechanical natural principles--it is so certain, indeed,
+     that we may confidently say: It is absurd for a man even to
+     conceive the idea that some day a Newton will arise who can explain
+     the origin of a single blade of grass by natural laws uncontrolled
+     by design. Such a hope is entirely forbidden us." Seventy years
+     afterwards this impossible Newton of the organic world appeared in
+     the person of Charles Darwin, and achieved the great task that Kant
+     had deemed impracticable.
+
+It is quite impossible to understand how such an assertion can be made
+by any one who knows the facts. Not only did Mr. Darwin never profess to
+have achieved any thing of the kind,--he repeatedly and distinctly
+disclaimed and repudiated any such supposition. Thus at the very end of
+his life (August 28, 1881) he wrote concerning one who had spoken of him
+like Professor Haeckel:
+
+     He implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most
+     monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks, the more one feels
+     the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. If we consider the whole
+     universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of
+     chance.[178] The whole question seems to me insoluble.
+
+But it should not be necessary to appeal to such disclaimers in order to
+show how absolutely unwarrantable are the pretensions made on Mr.
+Darwin's behalf to have solved, or to have attempted to solve, the
+fundamental problems which scientific research unceasingly suggests but
+has never been able to elucidate. It should be quite sufficient to
+examine his theory as it actually is, and although its scope is
+immensely less ambitious than has been represented, it still occupies,
+even in its genuine form, a position of sufficient importance to
+challenge investigation.
+
+Mr. Darwin's famous and epoch-making book, published in November, 1859,
+was entitled _On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,
+or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_. In it
+he undertook to show how from one species[179] of animals or plants,
+another, quite distinct from it, may be derived by means of processes
+which go on in Nature every day, through the accumulation of minute
+differences occurring in successive generations, and guided to their
+collective result by the force of "Natural Selection." As man, he
+argues, has by means of selection been able to produce in a brief space
+such astonishing varieties among his domestic animals and plants--as
+dogs, pigeons, roses or apples,--Nature, with the practically unlimited
+ages of geological time at her disposal, must be able to produce far
+greater and more enduring transformations, through the accumulation of
+minute differences, such as those upon which man has worked,--if only a
+factor can be found which amid the infinity of diverse and discordant
+variations spontaneously occurring, could, like the breeder or the
+gardener, pick out those leading to one particular result, and thus
+secure its accomplishment. Such a force Mr. Darwin conceives is found in
+"Natural Selection," which he thus explains.
+
+The tendency of organic life, whether vegetable or animal, being to
+propagate itself enormously,--and the life-sustaining capacity of the
+earth being limited,--it necessarily follows that only a fraction of the
+creatures which are born can survive to maturity, and that while those
+best fitted to live will live, those less well fitted will die. Thus,
+there is set up a constant struggle for existence, in which every
+advantage, however slight, must tell, so that those possessing such
+advantages in one generation will be the parents of the next. But in the
+course of propagation, the offspring never exactly reproduce the parent
+form, from which they vary, some in one way some in another, and as some
+of these variations cannot help being advantageous to their possessors
+in the struggle, we have here the required factor for the production of
+new forms. Any thus beneficially equipped, (although the variation, and
+consequently the advantage, must in each instance be exceedingly
+slight,) will have the chances on their side against their less favoured
+fellows, whom in the long run they will supplant. And as their
+offspring, or some of them, will carry the profitable variation somewhat
+further, the stream of life will thus be set in such a direction as will
+ultimately bring about what might at first appear impossible
+metamorphoses.
+
+Thus, to take a simple and favourite illustration,[180] winged insects
+inhabiting an island far from other land, are liable to be blown out to
+sea and drowned. It is in consequence, an advantage to them to have
+their power of flight curtailed, or taken away, and consequently in such
+situations their wings are generally found to be so reduced as to permit
+little or even nothing in the way of flying. Or to take an example of
+another kind,[181] the extraordinary length of neck which characterizes
+the giraffe enables it to browse on the higher branches of trees
+inaccessible to other vegetable feeders, and thus gives it an advantage
+over them in times of drought and scarcity of fodder. It can accordingly
+be easily understood, how its present structure has resulted from
+gradual elongations of the neck, each conferring on its possessor a
+slight advantage.
+
+The work attributed to Natural Selection in such instances, though no
+doubt highly important, is comparatively facile, and it would be
+difficult to say that it could not be accomplished. But Mr. Darwin
+ascribes to the same factor, not merely such modification of existing
+structures, but the creation of entirely new mechanisms for specific
+purposes. We have, for instance, heard his description of the eye and
+its manifold "inimitable contrivances:" yet all these, he persuaded
+himself, might be thus accounted for. The idea, he confessed,[182] seems
+at first sight preposterous; yet, though not without much
+difficulty,[183] he succeeded in convincing himself, that given the
+rudest and most rudimentary form of eye to start with--no more than a
+nerve sensitive to light but incapable of forming an image--Natural
+Selection might develop therefrom, through an infinite series of
+gradations the inconceivably complex machine that is now found in the
+higher vertebrates,[184] and the totally different but equally
+marvellous organs of sight possessed by insects, crustaceans, and other
+creatures.
+
+In like manner, Mr. Darwin contended, might the most complex and
+wonderful instincts be generated. As an example may be cited that by
+which the hive-bee constructs its combs--of which he thus speaks:[185]
+
+     He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a
+     comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic
+     admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically
+     solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper
+     shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least
+     possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has
+     been remarked that a skilful workman with fitting tools and
+     measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the
+     true form, though this is perfectly effected by a crowd of bees
+     working in a dark hive.[186] Granting whatever instincts you
+     please, it seems at first sight quite inconceivable how they can
+     make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when
+     they are correctly made. But the difficulty is not nearly so great
+     as it at first appears: all this beautiful work can be shown, I
+     think, to follow from a few simple instincts.
+
+He accordingly proceeds to argue, that beginning with circular cells,
+like those of Humble Bees, and progressing through an intermediate form,
+circular where free, but with flat partition walls where two or more
+cells touch one another, it is quite possible to suppose that Natural
+Selection has effected the whole improvement, those insects which
+accomplished any advance towards more scientific workmanship, and thus
+made materials go further, having been able to secure a livelihood
+better than their competitors.
+
+Such in brief outline is the Darwinian system, which undertakes to
+account for all the alleged facts of Organic Evolution by means of the
+above factor, variously described as "Natural Selection," or the
+"Survival of the fittest in the Struggle for Existence." It should be
+remembered, though it is constantly forgotten, that it is this
+particular theory as to the working-cause of evolutionary
+transformations which is the essence of Darwinism. Mr. Darwin did not
+originate the idea of genetic transformism, which is almost necessarily
+suggested by the systematic development of life-forms to which Geology
+bears witness. Consequently, long before he came on the scene, the
+doctrine of transformation had been propounded, especially by Lamarck,
+and if it had met with no general acceptance, this was chiefly because
+no force was indicated which seemed to offer a satisfactory account of
+the mode in which the required changes could have been wrought. Such a
+force Mr. Darwin's "Natural Selection" was widely taken to furnish, and
+his theory was eagerly welcomed and adopted by those who only required
+such a basis on which to ground beliefs to which they were already
+predisposed, and Darwinism thus obtained that pre-eminent position
+which it still retains, at least in popular estimation.
+
+Two special arguments may here be mentioned, which, although they really
+apply to all systems of Organic Evolution, have obtained a prescriptive
+right to be quoted particularly in favour of Darwinism, their bearing on
+which is easily seen.
+
+The first is based on the frequent occurrence of "rudimentary,"
+"fragmentary," or "vestigial" structures in animals and plants, which,
+although now seemingly useless, or even harmful, to their possessors,
+may be assumed to have been of service to their ancestors, but under
+changed conditions to have been thrown out of work by Natural Selection,
+and atrophied by disuse. Such are--the splint-bones of the horse,
+representing lost digits,--the rudimentary legs of some whales and
+serpents,--the _mammae_ and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the
+vegetable kingdom,--the aborted pistil in male florets of some
+_compositae_,--the useless corolla of certain wind-fertilized flowers,
+as _plantago_, and indeed the whole floral apparatus of plants which,
+like Wordsworth's pet the Lesser Celandine,[187] seldom ripen their
+seeds, but depend on other methods of propagation. The other fact cited
+on behalf of Darwinism is unquestionably very striking. In the course of
+their embryonic development, and even in the initial stages of their
+life after birth, higher animals pass through various phases in which
+they exhibit the characteristics of lower forms. Thus all life starts
+from a cell, in which there is nothing to shew whether it is ever to be
+anything more than a cell, or is to evolve a plant or animal,--nor, in
+this latter case, what sort of animal it is to be--a mollusc, for
+instance, a frog, or a mammal. At a later stage[188] it is impossible to
+distinguish the embryos of lizards, birds, and mammals except by size.
+Even the human fetus at an early period bears vestiges of gill-clefts or
+arches, pointing to an aquatic existence. When the extremities come to
+be developed,[189] "The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet
+of birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the
+same fundamental form." The young of flat-fish such as soles and
+turbots, when they leave the egg are not flat, but shaped like ordinary
+fish, and they wear their eyes in the normal fashion, one on each side
+of their head, not both on the same side like their parents--whose form
+however they presently by degrees assume. Young lions and black birds
+are spotted, showing their affinity respectively to panthers and
+thrushes--and so on in numberless instances. All such features, it is
+assumed, indicate the _phylogeny_ of each animal, or the history of the
+race to which it belongs. As Professor Milnes Marshall succinctly put
+the matter:[190]
+
+     The phases through which an animal passes in its progress from the
+     egg to the adult are no accidental freaks, no mere matters of
+     developmental convenience, but represent more or less closely ...
+     the successive ancestral stages through which the present condition
+     has been acquired. Evolution tells us that each animal has had a
+     pedigree in the past. Embryology reveals to us this ancestry,
+     because every animal in its own development repeats this history,
+     climbs up its own genealogical tree.
+
+Such are not by any means the only instances in which the Darwinist can
+appeal to Nature for facts with which his theory well agrees, and which
+therefore so far furnish a persuasive argument in its favour; but these
+are perhaps the chief ones, and the best known, and may serve as
+representative of their class which it is impossible for us to examine
+in detail.
+
+It now remains to enquire how far, from the point of view of Science,
+with which alone we are concerned, the Darwinian hypothesis can make
+good its claim to our acceptance. When we proceed accordingly to examine
+the grounds upon which it rests, it must be confessed that as we do so
+it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how such a theory has
+been able to obtain such wide acceptance, especially on the ground that
+scientific evidence is in its favour.
+
+On the very threshold of any such enquiry lies a difficulty the gravity
+of which seems to be strangely overlooked. Darwinism by its own
+confession knows nothing of Origins, not even of the Origin of Species
+itself. There must be life already existing before Natural Selection has
+anything to select; there must be eyes and honey-cells of some kind,
+before they can be improved; there must be Species, before one can be
+transformed into another. Is it not evident, however, that the cause--of
+whatever kind it may be--which brought any of these into being, must
+have _something_,--not to say everything,--to do with the capacities and
+potentialities by which its future history is conditioned? But this
+supreme and vital factor Mr. Darwin entirely eliminates from his
+calculation. In his system, the initiating force has no more to do with
+the subsequent career of its productions, than has the gas which lifts a
+balloon with the direction in which it travels. It is not, on his
+theory, as the impulse which, besides raising from earth an arrow or
+rifle bullet, directs it to a goal, but, on the contrary, an organism
+once launched on its course is left to be driven hither and thither and
+twisted into this form and that, as clouds are by the wind. For the
+variations through which transformations are wrought, Darwin could find
+no better epithet than "fortuitous," and it is laid down by his
+staunchest disciples that if such variations be predetermined towards
+certain results, there is an end of Darwinism.
+
+It is not easy to understand how any theory can be deemed satisfactory
+which thus ignores the initial force, of whose existence and potency we
+have far clearer evidence than of any other.
+
+When we turn from its omissions to study Darwinism as it is, obviously,
+in the first place, still, more than forty years since it was given to
+the world, it remains only an hypothesis, based not upon observation or
+experiment but speculation. In no single instance, past or contemporary,
+is one species known to have originated from another. The fact upon
+which Mr. Darwin primarily relies is that of variation. Undoubtedly
+amongst both plants and animals the offspring are not mere slavish
+reproductions of their parents, as if cast in the same mould, but
+exhibit individual differences, working upon which in domesticated
+instances, man can by selection produce wonderful varieties, as has
+already been admitted. But, as M. de Quatrefages says,[191] this tells
+us no more than that species admit of variation; it does not prove that
+they are capable of transformation, which is the whole point. Certainly,
+such transformation has never within our knowledge been effected. No
+breeder or fancier has succeeded, or can hope to succeed, in producing a
+new species. Moreover, as was pointed out by a critic whose ability Mr.
+Darwin himself candidly acknowledged,[192] the range of variability as
+we find it in any species is strictly limited, and although at first it
+is easy,--in the case of some few animals or plants,--to make great
+changes in particular directions, by selective breeding, it becomes more
+and more difficult as we proceed to continue in the same line. If, for
+instance, in the case of pigeons, a bird can be produced in six years
+with head and beak only one-half the size of those whence the process
+started, are we to say that in twelve years their bulk will be reduced
+to a quarter, and in twenty-four to an eighth? No one could suppose
+anything so absurd. Mr. Darwin would answer, that he relies upon the
+vast periods of geologic time to produce alterations such as we cannot
+possibly attempt within the few years at our disposal. But, it is
+replied, no length of time will avail anything for such a purpose,
+unless there be some force to produce variations in the required
+direction, to the required extent. Such a force is not proved to
+exist--all the evidence is against it. Where art is most practised in
+improvement of breeds, or the obtaining of any peculiarities--as with
+the speed of racehorses, the size of toy-terriers, or the "points" of
+prize cattle, it becomes most strikingly apparent that we have reached a
+limit beyond which species will not vary. And until such a cause as we
+require is fully proved to exist, its supposed effects cannot be made
+the basis of scientific argument.
+
+     A given animal or plant, [says the Reviewer] appears to be
+     contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation; one individual
+     lies near one portion of the surface, another individual near
+     another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre. Any
+     individual may produce descendants varying in any direction, but is
+     more likely to produce descendants varying towards the centre of
+     the sphere, and the variations in that direction will be greater in
+     amount than the variations towards the surface. Thus a set of
+     racers of equal merit indiscriminately breeding will produce more
+     colts and foals of inferior than of superior breed, and the falling
+     off of the degenerate will be greater than the improvement of the
+     select (p. 282).
+
+Similarly M. Blanchard declares:[193]
+
+     All investigation and observation make it clear that, while the
+     variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in
+     very different degrees, yet in its most astonishing manifestations
+     it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass.
+
+And the facts of nature, as we know them, far from favouring the
+instability of species, exhibit a tenacity of form compelling us to
+treat them as practically immutable. Thus, as Mr. Carruthers points
+out,[194] in the notoriously variable genus _Salix_, or willow-tribe,
+which seems to be actively advancing towards a multiplication of its
+subdivisions, sub-genera, species, varieties, and hybrid forms,--one
+species is found, _S. polaris_, dating from before the Glacial Epoch,
+which has been driven from England and other lands, by climatic changes,
+to within the Arctic circle of both Hemispheres,--yet amid this stress
+of circumstances has preserved its specific identity, down even to the
+casual variations, which might be supposed to furnish the
+starting-points for new developments. Yet in this tribe, if anywhere,
+evidence of specific evolution might be looked for.[195]
+
+Other instances seem to show that even under new and trying conditions
+those creatures survive best which keep closest to the central family
+type, not those which diverge in any direction. Thus, of European
+sparrows introduced in America, Mr. Bumpus writes:[196]
+
+     Natural Selection is most destructive of those birds which have
+     departed most from the ideal type, and its activity raises the
+     general standard by favouring those birds which approach the
+     structural ideal.
+
+Variation supplies the raw material upon which Natural Selection is
+supposed to work. When we turn to examine the process by which its
+results should be produced, we find, quite apart from the above
+difficulties, a crop of others still more formidable.
+
+It must be remembered, that the variations on which Natural Selection
+must work are in each instance extremely minute, well-nigh
+infinitesimal. Mr. Darwin was as strongly opposed to the idea of Nature
+making sudden bounds, as to that of a predetermined course of
+development. But, he argued, an extra chance of living, however slight,
+must necessarily tell in the long run, the theory of probabilities
+giving results as certain as any others in mathematics, and, according
+to these, we may confidently say that, given sufficient time, the
+favoured individuals would infallibly distance their competitors.
+
+The impressiveness of such an argument depends upon its seemingly
+mathematical character, which is however wholly fallacious, for the
+probabilities are all the other way. It is perfectly true that a
+beneficial variation however slight will confer on its happy possessor a
+corresponding advantage in the struggle for life, as compared with each
+_individual_ of the non-favoured herd, but, as to that herd
+collectively, the chances would, on the contrary, ensure that _some_ of
+its members should outlive the favoured one. Let us even imagine the
+advantage of the latter to be very great, great enough to double his
+chances, so that the odds on his surviving each of his fellows will be
+two to one. Yet if there be a dozen of them to contend with, the odds
+will be six to one _against_ his surviving the lot. And what of the
+actual case of minutest benefits conferred by variation? In order to
+give them even an equal chance of survival, the numbers of those
+possessing such advantages must be large in proportion as the advantages
+themselves are small. Thus, if a variation increases the chance of life
+by one-thousandth part, so that the odds on its possessor are 1001,
+against 1000 on each non-possessor, yet unless the number of possessors
+be to that of non-possessors as 1,000 to 1,001, their collective chances
+will not even be equal. As it is quite absurd to suppose that casual
+variations could ever occur in such wholesale fashion, how can it be
+supposed that, were Natural Selection the only factor operating, minute
+advantages could be accumulated by variation even in the simplest cases?
+
+But it is also hard to suppose that in any actual case is the matter so
+simple as it appears to our limited comprehension. To take for instance
+the above example of the giraffe. It is very well to have a neck that
+will reach high-branches of a tree,--but this is not everything. For the
+mere prolongation of life, much else is required, fleet limbs to
+distance lions, and keen senses, sight, hearing, and smell, to give
+warning of the approach of human or other hunters, to say nothing of the
+extra strengthening of muscles and bones which increased size and weight
+demands. Unless, however, improvements in all these respects happened
+casually to concur in the same individual, which could scarcely happen,
+it is clear that each would militate against the others, for the
+survival of an individual beneficially developed in one respect, would
+tend to the extinction of other beneficial developments, possessed by
+individuals whom he overcame in the struggle for life.
+
+Even the case of the insular insects is by no means so plain as might at
+first sight appear. There can be no doubt that wings are of _some_
+advantage, or on no system could they be supposed to exist. Nor do their
+advantages cease because disadvantages outweigh them. If some insects
+are blown out to sea when flying, others will doubtless perish in one
+way or another because they cannot fly. It may even be that those which
+can fly _best_ will survive, as being able to make head against a breeze
+which overpowers others. Natural Selection will thus have many arrows in
+its quiver, some of which must reach the wrong objects.
+
+Still more clearly does this appear in the case of complex structures in
+which, if they were produced as Mr. Darwin supposes, variation must have
+hit simultaneously upon independent contrivances, without each of which
+all the others would be useless and confer no benefit at all. In the
+eye, for example, to mention but one or two of innumerable similar
+points, it would be of no avail to have a retina, even such as has been
+described, without a lens to throw an image upon it, set just at the
+proper distance, and provided with muscles to alter its shape according
+to the distance of the object. How can Natural Selection be even
+conceived to have set to work on such a task as this?
+
+It is still more fundamental to observe that, according to Mr. Darwin's
+own showing, Natural Selection is purely negative in its action. "If it
+does select, it selects for death and not for life."[197] It can
+originate nothing, but only destroy. All that it does for favoured races
+is to spare them while it sweeps away others, and the sole benefit they
+derive from it is to have more ample resources upon which to draw. But
+as for anything they possess in the way of structure or character, they
+must derive it entirely from themselves--Natural Selection can no more
+confer it, than the labourer who weeds a garden bed makes the flowers
+that grow there. Let it be imagined that the first human beings on
+earth, any number of thousand years ago, planted a garden, and
+determined to produce a rose, by eliminating every plant that did not
+show some promise of progress rose-wards. Let the gardeners have been
+endowed with acumen sufficient to detect every symptom of such a
+tendency, and let their operations have been carried on without
+interruption to this day,--it is obvious that if roses had resulted, it
+could only be because among the plants they allowed to remain there
+existed a rose-making quality of some kind, to which, and not to
+anything done by human art or skill, the result was due. It would
+likewise have to be supposed that there were infinite other
+potentialities latent in the original plants, as of evolving thistles,
+shamrocks, or leeks--all equally awaiting their opportunity. Selective
+action could effectually put such competitors out of the way; but in the
+way of developing a race it could but leave it entirely to itself.
+Precisely similar is the part played by Natural Selection, except that
+it must needs play it immensely more slowly,--and if no one can fancy
+that human agency could by any possibility grow roses unless from some
+stock predetermined to grow into a rose and nothing else, what grounds
+have we that can be called scientific for attributing to a blind
+struggle for life an incomparably greater potency? Nor does it avail to
+quote the immense extent of time which may be supposed to have been
+available. No more than Natural Selection has time by itself any
+creative power. We know on the contrary by experience, that when things
+are not controlled by some principle of order, the lapse of time serves
+only to make confusion worse confounded.
+
+Another consideration of prime importance is too frequently ignored. On
+Darwinian principles, each step in any development can be made, not
+because it leads to an advantageous result in the future, but only
+because it is itself advantageous. At each stage favoured individuals
+survive others because they are favoured here and now, not because, when
+the development they promote shall be completed, their remote
+descendants will be favoured. Hence it must, for instance, be possible
+to suppose, that all the intermediate forms between two extremes,
+whereof one is supposed to have originated the other, were, each in its
+day, so beneficial as to preserve their possessors at the expense of
+non-possessors. But can this possibly be even imagined?
+
+To take one example. We have heard, speaking of embryology, that the
+feet of lizards and the wings and feet of birds arise from the same
+fundamental form of limb, whence it is argued that birds and lizards are
+alike descended from a common sauroid, or lizard-like, ancestor, whose
+limbs in the case of the former class have developed into wings and into
+feet of a totally new type,--while scales were developing into feathers,
+and innumerable alterations of internal structure were simultaneously in
+progress. But if so, to confine our attention to one particular, it
+must be true that each of the innumerable minute gradations between the
+fore-limb of a lizard and the wing of a bird, was in its turn the best
+kind of member for a creature to possess, giving him a distinct
+advantage in the struggle for existence. Nothing, however, appears
+plainer than that this could not possibly have been the case. The limb
+shaping towards a wing would be a very clumsy and inefficient leg long
+before it got to the point at which it became of the slightest use for
+purposes of flight, that is to say before its alteration was accompanied
+by any utility whatever. We can neither imagine that creatures furnished
+with limbs of such intermediate forms could have been otherwise than
+hopelessly handicapped by them, nor do we find anywhere in the rocks any
+trace whatever of the innumerable series of modifications which would be
+needed to link by imperceptible gradations legs and wings together.
+
+It only serves to make the matter less intelligible, that there _are_
+found in Secondary strata some few relics of birds with decidedly
+saurian characteristics,[198] as the _Hesperornis_ and _Ichthyornis_ in
+the Chalk, and the _Archæopteryx_, most ancient of fowls, lower still,
+in the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the
+_Archæopteryx_ in addition has decidedly reptilian characters connected
+with its wings and tail. But none of them throw the slightest light upon
+the point we are now considering. In the case of all, the problem of
+flight has been completely solved. Their wings are no rudimentary
+structures half way between legs and wings, but as finished productions
+as those of to-day. As Professor Huxley acknowledges, if the skeletons
+of _Hesperornis_ and _Icthyornis_ had been found without their skulls,
+they would probably have been classed without more ado amongst existing
+birds. The latter "has, [he tells us,] strong wings, and no doubt
+possessed corresponding powers of flight." The wings of _Hesperornis_,
+he says, resemble those of our divers and grebes, and were probably
+used, like theirs, chiefly for swimming.[199] As for the _Archæopteryx_,
+its reptilian features notwithstanding, it is a perfectly-appointed
+bird. As Sir Richard Owen testifies,[200] its wing, despite the
+peculiarities mentioned, is completely developed as to all essentials.
+Nor does even this member furnish the creature with its most bird-like
+characteristics,--but the keeled breast-bone, so intimately connected
+with the requirements of flight,--and, still more markedly, the feet.
+Professor Huxley writes: "The feet are not only altogether bird-like,
+but have the special character of the feet of perching birds; while the
+body had a clothing of true feathers."
+
+Thus, to whatever these Saurian birds may testify,--and the extreme
+importance of their evidence none will question--they no more serve to
+bridge the gulf between reptiles and birds, than a group of volcanic
+islets like the Azores bridges the Atlantic, for they supply no vestige
+of a continuous way from one term to the other. Rather, they do but
+enhance the mystery of the transformation, to the manner of which,
+despite their composite features, they furnish no clue.
+
+All such difficulties are enormously aggravated by a consideration
+which, obvious as it is, seems seldom to be considered. The arguments we
+commonly hear appear to imply that _one_ parent is sufficient to secure
+the transmission of a beneficial variation to the next generation. But,
+of course, the parent requires a mate, and unless this mate has chanced
+to hit on the same line of variation, it cannot be supposed that it will
+be transmitted. Seeing, however, the exceeding minuteness of these
+variations in each instance, they can avail nothing to bring together
+the right mates to perpetuate them. Two reptiles, for instance, are not
+the more likely to pair because their fore limbs have taken the first
+faint and distant step towards becoming wings, while in the vegetable
+kingdom, notwithstanding Erasmus Darwin's _Loves of the Plants_, the
+idea of any choice of partners is still more grotesque. The allotment of
+mates must therefore be left to Chance; and the results will follow the
+ordinary laws of probability. Accordingly, if we suppose so large a
+proportion as five per cent., or one in twenty, of any species to
+possess an advantageous variation,--only one in twenty of the
+individuals thus favoured will secure a similarly favoured mate,--for
+each will have nineteen wrong selections offered to him or her, for one
+right one. Only one pair in four hundred will therefore transmit the
+variation to five per cent. of _their_ offspring, or one in eight
+thousand of the species, and of these only one pair in
+a-hundred-and-sixty-thousand will make an advantageous match. Such is
+the inevitable consequence of leaving any definite result to Chance: and
+here it is that Natural Selection is found to betray the most fatal of
+all its deficiencies; for, whatever its advocates may say, it is Chance
+and Chance alone upon which it relies. Just because man can and does
+select the proper mates, is he able to produce by breeding the results
+to which Mr. Darwin appeals as evidence, that Nature having no such
+power of selection, must be able to produce results of which man cannot
+even dream.[201]
+
+Natural Selection is in truth no selection at all, that is just its weak
+point, which the title conferred upon it serves to hide. What are called
+its products owe no more to it than Wellington owed his generalship to
+the bullets which did not hit him at Seringapatam. If they are not
+determined to a particular development they can attain it only by
+Chance.
+
+Of Chance, enough has already been said. It is, however, worth our
+while to observe how constantly to the last Mr. Darwin was haunted by
+the consciousness that this was in reality the factor upon which his
+system must depend, and that it could not possibly account for much that
+he came across in nature. If, as he confessed, the sight of a peacock's
+tail-feather made him sick, it was just because its elaborate beauty, to
+which no commensurate advantage can be supposed to attach, forbade the
+notion that his theory could account for it. So, of another still more
+marvellous instance in which Nature exhibits artistic power, namely the
+ball-and-socket ornament on the wings of the Argus pheasant, he
+writes:[202]
+
+     No one, I presume, will attribute this shading, which has excited
+     the admiration of many experienced artists, to chance--to the
+     fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring matter. That these
+     ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many
+     successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to
+     produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one
+     of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of
+     chance daubs of paints made by a long succession of young artists,
+     not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+1. Basal portion of secondary wing-feather; nearest body, shewing first
+rudiment of "ocelli."
+
+2. Portion of secondary wing-feather near body, shewing "elliptic"
+ornaments.
+
+3. Part of secondary wing-feather, shewing developed "ocelli."
+
+Feathers from wing of Argus Pheasant, from Darwin's _Descent of Man_.]
+
+Nevertheless, Mr. Darwin proceeds to argue at considerable length that
+an explanation consistent with his theory is favoured by the occurrence
+on the same wings of designs exhibiting every stage of gradation from a
+mere spot to the finished ball-and-socket _ocellus_; in the same way as
+the tail feathers of a peacock advance from a mere sketch to the
+completed design. It is not easy, however, to understand in what way
+this is supposed to solve the difficulty and not vastly to increase it.
+That a finished artistic effect should be fortuitously produced at all
+would be incredible enough. That it should be worked up by Chance
+through a series of processes, each doing something towards its
+completion, is surely not less, but far more inconceivable.
+
+In such a mode of explanation, however, is exemplified a feature which
+must not be forgotten in discussing Darwinism,--namely the fatal
+facility with which seeming arguments can be procured on its behalf. As
+Mr. Mivart well remarks:[203] "The Darwinian theory has the great
+advantage of only needing for its support the suggestion of some
+possible utility, actual or ancestral, in each case--no difficult task
+for an ingenious, patient, and accomplished thinker." And our _North
+British_ Reviewer makes a similar comment: "The believer who is at
+liberty to invent any imaginary circumstances, will very generally be
+able to conceive some series of transmutations answering his wants."
+
+Or if, as in the above instance of the Argus' eyes, a series is actually
+found, it is even less difficult to take for granted that it can have
+but one significance; while such assumptions are too frequently
+accepted without hesitation or demur, although it would be no easy task
+to show that they rest upon any solid grounds. When, in addition, either
+Mr. Darwin himself or some of his leading partisans has declared that
+some unverified process has undoubtedly occurred, or that they see no
+reason to doubt its occurrence, or that nothing which we know precludes
+its possibility,--it appears to be widely supposed that something
+substantial is thereby added to the scientific evidence, and that the
+suppositions thus sanctioned may even rank as facts. But however such a
+method may avail to secure acceptance for a doctrine, it does nothing
+for its scientific value. Such a style, as Mr. Mivart says,[204] is
+calculated to impress only minds too easily dominated, and not prepared
+by special studies accurately to weigh the evidence put before them.
+
+Illustrations of this strange method of procedure are furnished in
+connexion with various points already mentioned. Thus, as we have seen,
+Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the origin of rational speech, by the
+conscious utterance of a significant sound by an unusually wise ape-like
+creature. In favour of this very large suggestion, Mr. Darwin has
+nothing more substantial to say[205] than that "it does not appear
+altogether incredible," which does not appear to take us very far.[206]
+Yet I have seen this described as an "idyllic scene" shedding an
+entirely new light on the subject. So again in regard of the evolution
+of the eye.[207] Having summarily enumerated the various stages of
+development exhibited by this organ as actually existing in various
+animals, Mr. Darwin goes on to say that when we remember how small the
+number of living forms must be in comparison with extinct, and the other
+gradations that may consequently have existed, "the difficulty ceases to
+be very great" in believing that Natural Selection has connected the
+most rudimentary with the perfect structure. Similarly, as to the
+cell-making instinct of the bee,[208] having postulated four several
+suppositions for which evidence is not forthcoming, he concludes: "By
+such modification of instincts ... I believe that the hive bee has
+acquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural
+powers."[209] Similar examples might be multiplied indefinitely.
+
+Not unfrequently the tone of such utterances is more imperious. Thus, of
+the descent of Man from some animal ancestor Mr. Darwin pronounces[210]
+"The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken," and
+again[211] "the possession of exalted mental powers is no insuperable
+objection to this conclusion" ... "It is only [p. 32] our natural
+prejudice which leads us to demur to this conclusion." He even goes so
+far as to declare that his view is forced upon every man who is not
+content to assume the mental attitude of a savage.[212]
+
+Argumentation of this character, which he finds common with Darwin to
+other Evolutionists, is judged by de Quatrefages to be one of the
+weakest and most misleading features of their systems.
+
+     Personal conviction [he writes],[213] mere possibility, are offered
+     as proofs, or at least as arguments in favour of the theory. Can we
+     admit their validity? Obviously not. The human mind can conceive
+     many things: is that a reason for accepting them all?... Obviously
+     more serious proofs are needed. After all, save where a
+     contradiction is involved, everything is _possible_.... If
+     adopting, under the shadow of Oken's great name, his principle of
+     the repetition of phenomena, a naturalist should maintain that each
+     of the planets has its own Europe, its England, and its Darwin
+     expounding to the Jovians and Saturnians the origin of species, I
+     do not quite see how one would set about showing him that he was
+     wrong. Unquestionably the thing is _possible_. Are we to draw the
+     conclusion that it is a fact?
+
+Again,[214] the same distinguished naturalist, having quoted Darwin's
+very elaborate explanation of a difficulty, remarks:
+     We see how with Darwin, as with his precursors, one hypothesis
+     necessitates another. But can he, at least, by means of these
+     subsidiary theories, these comparisons, these metaphors, account
+     for all the facts? No, he himself honestly confesses more than once
+     that he cannot. It is true that he adds "I am convinced that the
+     objections have little weight, and the difficulties are not
+     insoluble." But is this conviction of his a proof, or even an
+     argument?
+
+M. Blanchard likewise comments vigorously on this mode of argumentation.
+Speaking of the Mole and Darwin's explanation of its blindness, namely
+that having taken to living under-ground it lost its eyes through
+disuse--which he considers a most preposterous supposition,--M Blanchard
+continues:[215]
+
+     The realms of fancy are boundless; but the observer who is
+     concerned with realities can only have recourse to the facts of
+     science. Fossil remains discovered in very ancient strata show that
+     the underground animal of present times does not differ from his
+     geological counterpart. The Mole belongs to a very peculiar type,
+     and has no nearer European relatives than the Hedgehog and the
+     Shrew. Can we imagine a common ancestor of Shrews, Hedgehogs, and
+     Moles? On this point Mr. Darwin expresses no opinion,--which should
+     not be, for when confronted by forms clearly differentiated, he is
+     wont to extricate himself from difficulties with matchless
+     facility. The intermediate links, he will say, were doubtless less
+     fitted to live than were the others, and so have disappeared. After
+     _that_ the Evolutionists consider any one quite out of date who
+     does not consider himself entirely satisfied with so felicitous an
+     explanation.
+
+M. de Quatrefages denounces another fatal defect often observable in the
+method of proof.
+
+     Mr. Darwin frequently complains that our actual knowledge is
+     incomplete. But instead of discovering in our lack of precise and
+     extensive information a motive for caution, he appears to derive
+     from it only greater daring. Doctrines based on the instability of
+     species have often been combated by geologists and palæontologists.
+     In reply to their objections Darwin devotes a whole chapter to
+     shewing the imperfection of the geological record. "For my part,"
+     he concludes, "I look at the geological record as a history of the
+     world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect; of this
+     history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or
+     three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short
+     chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a
+     few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less
+     different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of
+     life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which
+     falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the
+     difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even
+     disappear."
+
+     On my part [continues M. de Quatrefages] I will ask whether such a
+     conclusion is the correct one. No doubt, Darwin is right in
+     refusing to certain naturalists the right to dogmatize on the
+     strength of uncompleted studies, or scanty and isolated
+     observations. Is he therefore entitled to allege as proofs on his
+     own behalf the very gaps of science, appealing to the lost volumes
+     and leaves of Nature's chronicle? Clearly not. But the slightest
+     reflection suffices to recognize that this appeal to the unknown,
+     so frankly evidenced in the above passage, lies at the root of all
+     argumentation analogous to that which I have tried to
+     describe--that of Maillet, Lamarck, and Geoffroy,[216] as well as
+     Darwin. Only the unknown, in sooth, can open the boundless region
+     of speculation, where the possible replaces the actual, and where,
+     despite the widest knowledge and the soundest intelligence, one
+     comes as by a fatality to find a conclusive proof on one's own
+     side, precisely in that of which we profess to know nothing.
+
+So again, speaking of a certain conclusion of Professor Haeckel's
+concerning the embryology of lemurs, which MM. Grandidier and Alphonse
+Edwards afterwards proved experimentally to be altogether erroneous, de
+Quatrefages writes:[217]
+
+     Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book
+     preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea
+     itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the
+     majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin
+     set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody
+     knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of knowledge,
+     and draw arguments from their very ignorance.
+
+In like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once.
+Thus:[218]
+
+     The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult
+     of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds,
+     tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of
+     species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable
+     barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be
+     no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However
+     an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced
+     somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have
+     spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results.
+
+And again:[219]
+
+     We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous
+     scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as
+     to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as
+     follows:--"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is
+     possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those
+     hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable." There is
+     little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually _have
+     been_.
+
+In no respect, moreover, have Darwin's followers more closely imitated
+their master than in the construction of such hypotheses, which would
+appear to constitute in the eyes of many the most important work of
+Science. Attention has very largely been diverted from Nature as
+actually existing, which seems to be studied more for the light it can
+be supposed to throw upon evolutionary history, than simply for itself,
+and it seems to be thought that to imagine the mode of an evolutionary
+process is equivalent to establishing the facts which that process
+supposes. By this method lengthy and learned papers are written
+concerning the transformation of one species into another, which in
+reality do no more than describe in minute detail all the changes which
+must have taken place, _if_ the said transformation really occurred.
+That Science is thus benefited, is not the opinion of some at least who
+are well entitled to speak on her behalf, for as the President of the
+Linnean Society recently observed,[220] as one grows older, it becomes
+more and more apparent that facts alone are of any serious interest, and
+that speculations however ingenious and attractive are best left to the
+constructive and destructive energies of the young. So too, a few years
+ago, the President of the Microscopical Society complained that interest
+in living creatures is largely supplanted by dead ones.[221]
+
+     We read much [he said] of the animal's organs: we see plates
+     showing that its bristles have been counted, and its muscular
+     fibres traced to the last thread; we have the structure of its
+     tissues analyzed to their very elements; we have long discussions
+     on its title to rank with this group or that; and sometimes even
+     disquisitions on the probable form and habits of some extremely
+     remote, but quite hypothetical, ancestor, who is made to degrade in
+     this way, or to advance in that, or who is credited with one organ
+     or deprived of another, just as the ever-varying necessities of a
+     desperate hypothesis require....
+
+There is another aspect of the question which must by no means be
+overlooked. It has to be assumed that Natural Selection, or the survival
+of the fittest in the struggle for existence, necessarily tends to the
+benefit of the _race_ and moreover to its farther development on the
+upward grade, towards a more perfect and more specialized
+organization;--in Mr. Herbert Spencer's words, to progression from a
+relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a relatively definite,
+coherent heterogeneity. But here many questions occur.
+
+In the first place, a consideration presents itself, which appears to
+furnish the most formidable of all difficulties in the way of Mr.
+Darwin's hypothesis. How can this struggle for existence be supposed to
+have any tendency to promote organic development to ever higher and more
+perfect types, in the orderly sequence which has in fact occurred? The
+"Survival of the fittest" means only the survival _of the fittest to
+survive_,--of such as can find means of living where others cannot.
+Unless it can be shown that increased complexity of organization
+necessarily brings with it such increased vitality, Natural Selection
+can do nothing for organic development. If the mere power of living be
+the only factor in the process, as on Mr. Darwin's showing it is, a man
+is only a more complicated and delicate machine for securing the same
+object which can equally well, or better, be attained by a mole, a
+cockroach, or a microbe. And who will say that, so far as this
+particular end is concerned, he is better equipped than creatures which
+all the resources of civilization are powerless to exterminate?
+
+That practical advantage in the struggle for existence must necessarily
+accompany increased specialization of organs, and thus produce a
+"higher" organization, was a prime point of Mr. Darwin's argument,
+though at the same time he found himself compelled to encumber it with
+qualifications which go very far to neutralize its force; for he had to
+explain the obvious fact that so many creatures which represent the
+lowest and least specialized forms of life, have survived down to our
+own time. Thus he writes:[222]
+
+     The degree of differentiation and specialization of the parts in
+     organic beings, when arrived at maturity, is the best standard, as
+     yet suggested, of their degree of perfection or highness. As the
+     specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural
+     selection will tend to render the organization of each being more
+     specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but that it
+     may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures
+     fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even
+     degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded
+     beings better fitted for their new walks of life.
+
+     By this fundamental test of victory in the battle of life, as well
+     as by the standard of the specialization of organs, modern forms
+     ought, on the theory of Natural Selection, to stand higher than
+     ancient forms. Is this the case? A large number of palæontologists
+     would answer in the affirmative; and it seems that this answer must
+     be admitted as true, though difficult of proof.
+
+That is to say, Natural Selection is just as ready to degrade as to
+elevate a creature, according to the actual requirements of the
+circumstances in which it is placed, and how far progress has been the
+rule, rather than stability or retrogression, is a question for
+geological history to determine. This we shall have to consider in our
+next chapter.
+
+It is likewise obvious that so far as the mere struggle for existence is
+concerned, a species each of whose individual members is but poorly
+furnished, may nevertheless flourish unimpaired on the mere strength of
+its fecundity. It is thus, says M. Blanchard,[223] that the lower forms
+of life continue to hold their own despite the enormous ravages to which
+they are subject. The herring, for example, affords food to all the
+fowls of the air and fish of the sea, over and above the myriads
+annually requisitioned by man. Yet its hosts show no sign of being
+exterminated or even reduced. Much the same is the case of the cod; but
+a tribe one individual of which has been known to produce nine million
+eggs does not require much in the way of coherent heterogeneity to
+ensure its survival.
+
+Thus it appears that of itself Darwinism affords no explanation whatever
+of the regular progression of life forms from lower to higher, to which
+the records of Nature bear witness, and which is the one solid fact
+suggesting the idea of Evolution.
+
+Such are some of the reasons which, on purely rational grounds, appear
+amply to justify those who decline to pledge their faith to Darwinism,
+in spite of the popularity it enjoys. But what is to be said of the
+phenomena cited as furnishing positive and unimpeachable evidence in its
+favour, which were mentioned above in our sketch of its main features?
+
+First as to the rudimentary, fragmentary, or vestigial organs so common
+in Nature. These, it is said, being of no possible advantage to their
+possessors, and often a serious disadvantage, can be explained only by
+supposing that they were serviceable in the past to the ancestral race
+whence these possessors are derived, and have since been superseded by
+other modifications of structure, so as to dwindle away by disuse. This,
+no doubt, seems a very plausible explanation, but it does not follow
+that we ought immediately to adopt it as a certainty, instead of
+setting ourselves to examine how it accords with all the facts. Nothing
+is more dangerous and less scientific than to be in a hurry to conclude
+that everything is certain which seems to ourselves probable, especially
+if it suits a theory of our own. Unfortunately, this law is too
+frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance. In the
+present instance, Professor Haeckel himself furnishes an example. He is
+quite sure that the rudimentary structures can have but one
+significance, and that they are fatal to the idea of purpose in Nature,
+the object of his special aversion, and so he has proposed a new term,
+"Dysteleology," to embody this idea, of which he says,[224]
+
+     _Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness_ [is] the name I
+     have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of suppressed and
+     degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of the body; one of the
+     most important and most interesting branches of comparative
+     anatomy, which, when rightly estimated, is alone sufficient to
+     refute the fundamental error of the teleological and dualistic
+     conception of Nature, and to serve as the foundation of the
+     mechanical and monistic conception of the universe.
+
+It will be sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's remarks upon this
+passage, taken from the very laudatory review he wrote of the work in
+which it occurs.[225]
+
+
+     Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,
+     "Dysteleology," for the study of the "purposelessnesses" which are
+     observable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of
+     rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,
+     that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut
+     two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that
+     useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral
+     rudiments of toes in the foot of a horse place us in a dilemma.
+     For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which
+     case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form
+     since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or
+     they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no
+     use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but stronger
+     argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even
+     functional mammary glands in male mammals.... There can be little
+     doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the
+     remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet
+     it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male
+     organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its
+     dysteleological value is gone.
+
+In later editions Professor Huxley further observed: "The recent
+discovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a
+warning to all speculators about useless organs."[226]
+
+It seems, therefore, the wiser part to refrain from basing any vital
+conclusions upon these organs until we can assure ourselves that our
+knowledge warrants our so doing. As the same Professor Huxley intimated,
+it might be well for palæontologists, and doubtless for biologists
+likewise,[227] "To learn a little more carefully that scientific '_ars
+artium_,' the art of saying 'I don't know.'"
+
+So again as to the phenomena of embryology. No doubt they are very
+striking and impressive. That the most highly developed creatures, and
+man himself, should in the first stages of existence exhibit the
+characteristics of lower forms, is an exemplification of development no
+less signal than the succession of ascending types witnessed to by the
+rocks. It is not easy to see, however, why it should be taken for
+granted that this can only signify genetic descent from all such forms,
+and that these embryo animals are engaged in climbing up their
+genealogical trees. Yet this is usually assumed as a matter of course,
+and any one who ventures to question the validity of such an inference,
+must be prepared to find himself accused of dogmatizing.
+
+And yet, after all, upon what grounds does the assumption rest? That
+such a recapitulation of racial experiences forms no essential feature
+of Evolution is sufficiently evident from the case of the vegetable
+world,--for plants do not climb _their_ genealogical trees, or pass in
+the seed through a series of botanical phases. And as to animals, since
+through all varieties of form, each always arrives at the required term,
+it is obvious that, apart from any archaic associations, and on
+Darwinian principles themselves, these forms must be the best for the
+purpose at each respective stage,--perhaps the only ones by which the
+term could be reached. It is therefore, to say the least, quite
+conceivable, that we have here the whole explanation and need go no
+further.
+
+In certain instances this obvious consideration is strikingly
+illustrated. Thus the salamander, an Amphibian of the newt family,
+brings forth its young in adult condition without gills.[228] But
+previously to birth they have gills relatively large. The experiment
+having been tried of bringing some of them forth by artificial means
+before their time, and placing them in water, the first thing they did
+was to cast off these big gills, which were speedily replaced by new
+ones of much smaller size, and evidently better suited for the work
+required, as they lasted as long as a fortnight.
+
+Here, in the first place, it is quite impossible to suppose that the
+large gills would continue to appear unless they were of advantage
+during the period of gestation. It is equally evident that it is not
+from a previous aquatic condition that they are inherited, for in such a
+condition they are useless. Finally, as Mr. Mivart observes, the new
+gills, suitable for unwonted conditions, were developed "not in a
+struggle for existence against rivals, but directly and spontaneously
+from the innate nature of the animal."
+
+This view of the matter commended itself on mature consideration to so
+ardent an evolutionist as Carl Vogt, with whom we may couple M. de
+Quatrefages, who cites his words with approval as follows:[229]
+
+     It has been laid down as a fundamental law of biogenesis that
+     ontogeny (the development of the individual) and phylogeny (that of
+     the race) must exactly correspond.... This law which I long held as
+     well founded is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of
+     embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own
+     conditions suitable to themselves, very different from those of
+     adults.
+
+"In a word," M. de Quatrefages continues, "the learned Genevan professor
+rightly considers that, 'The ontogenesis of all organic beings without
+exception, is the normal result of all the various influences which
+operate upon such beings.'"
+
+But it must, moreover, be noted that the story which embryology can be
+made to tell is by no means so plain as we might easily be led to
+suppose.
+
+Thus, although snakes are held to be descended from lizards, and some of
+them have rudimentary legs even in the adult stage, others have no trace
+of limbs even in the egg, while they _have_ vestiges of gills, and thus
+would seem to be visibly linked to ancient water-dwelling ancestors, and
+not to far more recent land-dwellers. Again;[230] Amphibians (frogs,
+newts and the like) agree in some respects, as to the development of the
+germ, with mammals, differing in the same respects from reptiles and
+birds. But reptiles and birds are supposed to be a more recent
+development than Amphibia, and therefore should intervene between them
+and mammals on the genealogical tree. Moreover the eggs of one group of
+Amphibians are found to exhibit some remarkable resemblances to those of
+reptiles and birds, from which it would thus appear to have derived
+them, although on other grounds it is declared to be of an older stock
+than theirs. Most frogs, toads, and newts come out of the egg as
+tadpoles, furnished with gills and so breathing in water. This should
+signify that these creatures are descended from fish or fishlike
+ancestors. But one frog (_Rana opisthodon_) is never a tadpole even in
+the egg, from which he gets out by means of a special opener on his
+snout which he has somehow acquired. On the other hand certain
+newts[231] breed as tadpoles instead of in their mature form, which
+looks like an attempt to climb down the tree instead of up.
+
+It will be remembered that the latter phrase was that used by Professor
+Milnes Marshall. Yet even he expressed himself strongly concerning the
+exaggerations of Professor Haeckel on this subject. In his review of
+Haeckel's _Anthropogenie_,[232] after observing that many descriptions
+of human embryology have been based on observations of dogs, pigs,
+rabbits, or even chickens and dogfish, he thus continued regarding the
+book before him:
+
+     A student who relied on Professor Haeckel's description, would
+     obtain an entirely erroneous idea of the development of the human
+     embryo.... It is a matter for great regret that a book of 900
+     pages, bearing such a title, should be allowed to appear, in which
+     the account of the actual development of the human embryo is so
+     inadequate or even erroneous.
+
+Far more fundamental, however, is a remark of Mr. Mivart's, that if, as
+Darwinians say, the development of the individual is an epitome of that
+of the species, the latter must like the former be due to the action of
+definite innate laws unconsciously carrying out definite preordained
+ends and purposes. For although cells or embryos may be
+indistinguishable from one another, and may appear to us identical in
+constitution, their differences are absolute. Each is determined to be
+one sort of animal and no other, and can live at all only on condition
+of developing towards the prescribed form.--Therefore, whatever evidence
+the embryonic forms may be supposed to afford in support of Evolution,
+they have nothing in common with the haphazard process of Natural
+Selection.
+
+And here again Professor Huxley found himself obliged to enter his
+_caveat_, and to intimate his opinion that some of his friends were
+inclined to build too confidently upon this foundation. As his
+biographer Professor Weldon writes in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_:
+
+     Darwin had suggested an interpretation of the facts of embryology
+     which led to the hope that a fuller knowledge of development might
+     reveal the history of all the great groups of animals at least in
+     its main outlines. This hope was of service as a stimulus to
+     research, but the attempt to interpret the phenomena observed led
+     to speculations which were often fanciful and always incapable of
+     verification. Huxley was keenly sensible of the danger attending
+     the use of a hypothetical explanation, leading to conclusions which
+     cannot be experimentally tested, and he carefully avoided it.... In
+     the preface to the _Manual of the Comparative Anatomy of
+     Invertebrated Animals_, he says: "I have abstained from discussing
+     questions of ætiology,[233] not because I underestimate their
+     importance, or am insensible to the interest of the great problem
+     of Evolution, but because, to my mind, the growing tendency to mix
+     up ætiological speculations with morphological generalizations
+     will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion."
+
+Accordingly, Huxley himself based his faith in Evolution on
+palæontological evidence, and attempted to decide the precise course it
+had followed only "in the few cases where the evidence seemed to him
+sufficiently complete." This line of enquiry we have still to pursue,
+but meanwhile, it is evident that the phenomena we have been
+considering, failing to meet the approval of so thorough-going an
+Evolutionist as he undoubtedly was, cannot be said to furnish convincing
+scientific evidence in favour of Darwinism.
+
+It will be asked how it comes to pass, if the Darwinian system really
+lies open to so many objections, that it occupies so large a place in
+scientific estimation. To this we must reply that, in spite of its great
+name, its success has throughout been popular rather than truly
+scientific, and that as time went on it has lost ground among the class
+of men best qualified to judge. Evolutionists there are in plenty,--but
+very few genuine Darwinists, and amongst these can by no means be
+reckoned all who adopt the title, for not a few of them--as Romanes and
+Weismann--profess doctrines which cannot be reconciled with those of
+Darwin himself. Meanwhile, an increasing volume of scientific opinion
+sets definitely against Darwinism as an adequate explanation of the
+philosophy of life, and falls into the view expressed long ago by
+Charles Robin[234] who, as a freethinker, had no antecedent objections
+against it, "Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of
+probabilities without proof, and of attractive explanations without
+demonstration."
+
+It would be tedious to cite testimonies at length, but, in addition to
+M. de Quatrefages who has made a full and careful study of the whole
+question, [_Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français_, and _Les Emules
+de Darwin_] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [_La
+vie des êtres animés_], Wigand [_Der Darwinismus und die
+Naturforschung_, etc.], Wolff [_Beiträge zur Kritik der darwinschen
+Lehre_], Hamann [_Entwicklungslehre und Darwinismus_], Pauly [_Wahres
+und Falsches an Darwins Lehre_], Driesch [_Biologisches Zentralblatt_,
+1896 and 1902], Plate [_Bedeutung und Tragweite des Darwinschen
+Selektionsprincip_], Hertwig [_Address to Naturalist Congress_,
+_Aachen_, 1900], Heer [_Urwelt der Schweiz_], Kölliker [_Ueber die
+darwin'sche Schöpfungstheorie_], Eimer [_Entstehung der Arten_], Von
+Hartmann [_Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus_], Schilde
+[_Antidarwinistisches im Ausland_], Du Bois-Reymond [_Conference_,
+August 2, 1881, etc.], Virchow [_Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, etc.],
+Nägeli [_Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre_],
+Schaafhausen [_Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen_], Fechner [_Ideen zur
+Schöpfungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen_], Jakob [_Der
+Mensch_, etc.], Diebolder [_Darwins Grundprinzip_, etc.], Huber [_Die
+Lehre Darwins kritisch betrachtet_], Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer,--all
+of whom either reject Darwinism altogether, or admit it only with fatal
+reservations.
+
+Special weight must attach to the adverse verdict of M. Fabre, styled by
+Darwin himself "that inimitable observer," who declares that he cannot
+reconcile the theory with the facts he encounters.[235]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one or two of our own countrymen, whose
+utterances will enable us to form an opinion as to the true scientific
+status of the doctrine.
+
+We may begin with Huxley, the great popular champion of Darwinism, who
+did more than any other man to spread the new doctrine. Yet, strange to
+say, he seems never to have really accepted its fundamental tenet
+himself, always appearing very shy of Natural Selection, and carefully
+abstaining from committing himself to any responsibility for it. Thus in
+his treatise on _Man's Place in Nature_, he thus explains his position
+in its regard:
+
+     Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent
+     with any biological fact; on the contrary, if admitted, the facts
+     of Development, of Comparative Anatomy, of Geographical
+     Distribution, and of Palæontology, become connected together, and
+     exhibit a meaning such as they never possessed before; and I, for
+     one, am firmly convinced, that if not precisely true, that
+     hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for
+     example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the
+     planetary motions. But for all this, our acceptance of the
+     Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+     chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and
+     plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock
+     are fertile with one another, the link will be wanting. For, so
+     long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do
+     all that is required of it to produce natural species.
+
+This missing link, like various others, has never been supplied, and in
+consequence Professor Huxley never abandoned his attitude of reserve. On
+the contrary, when, in 1880, he delivered an address to celebrate "the
+Coming of Age of the _Origin of Species_" he discharged the task without
+once mentioning Natural Selection, which is to that work as the Prince
+of Denmark is to _Hamlet_.
+
+But there is one passage in the said address, which deserves to be
+specially remembered:
+
+     History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to
+     begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now
+     stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty
+     years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the
+     present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of
+     the _Origin of Species_, with as little reflection, and it may be
+     with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries,
+     twenty years ago, rejected them.
+
+In 1886, Professor Romanes pronounced as follows:[236]
+
+"At present it would be impossible to find any working naturalist who
+supposes that survival of the fittest is competent to explain all the
+phenomena of species-formation."
+
+As to the actual position now occupied in Scientific opinion by Mr.
+Darwin's hypotheses, we may content ourselves with the declaration of
+Professor S. H. Vines in his Presidential address to the Linnean
+Society, May 24, 1902.
+
+     1. It is established that Natural Selection, though it may have
+     perpetuated species, cannot have originated any.
+
+     2. It is still a mystery why Evolution should tend from the lower
+     to the higher, from simple to complex organisms.
+
+     3. The facts seem to admit of no other interpretation than that
+     variation is not [as Darwin supposed] indeterminate, but that there
+     is in living matter an inherent determination in favour of
+     variation in the higher direction.
+
+That is to say, Darwin's _Origin of Species_ does not explain the Origin
+of Species; and as to the laws which govern Evolution we can be sure
+only that they are not those which he assigned.
+
+In like manner, Sir Oliver Lodge pronounces:[237]
+
+     Take the origin of species by the persistence of favourable
+     variations; how is the appearance of these same favourable
+     variations accounted for? Except by artificial selection not at
+     all. Given their appearance, their development by struggle and
+     inheritance and survival can be explained; but that they arose
+     spontaneously, by random changes without purpose, is an assertion
+     which cannot be made.
+
+We are thus in a position to form our own judgment as to the claim made
+on behalf of Mr. Darwin, with which we started this chapter--namely,
+that he has eliminated all mystery from the organic world by the
+discovery of natural mechanical laws by which all its operations are
+governed. It is, indeed, difficult to understand how Darwinists
+themselves can suppose their system to make any such claim, for, as M.
+Paul Vignon truly observes,[238] "La science darwinnienne s'imaginait
+avoir triomphé du Sphinx, alors qu'elle avait simplement décomposé le
+problème dans une monnaie d'énigmes moins rébarbatives en apparence." As
+has been said, it is far more on account of the vast consequences
+professedly based upon it, as a sure foundation stone, than for its own
+sake, that it has seemed advisable to devote so much attention to the
+study of Darwinism, quite apart from which the whole question of organic
+Evolution still demands consideration.
+
+It seems far more just to conclude with M. Fabre:[239]
+
+     Let us acknowledge that in truth we know nothing about anything, so
+     far as ultimate truths are concerned. Scientifically considered
+     nature is a riddle to which human curiosity can find no answer.
+     Hypothesis follows hypothesis, the ruins of theories are piled one
+     on another, but truth ever escapes us. To learn how to remain in
+     ignorance may well be the final lesson of wisdom.[240]
+
+
+
+
+XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+
+Leaving the field of speculation and "ætiology," we have now to enquire,
+not to what causes organic Evolution may be attributable, but how far it
+can be shewn to have actually occurred. This can be learnt only from the
+history of life upon earth as disclosed by the evidence of palæontology,
+or the geological record, and we are thus brought to the investigation
+of that evidence, by which alone, as Professor Huxley agrees, can the
+truth about Evolution be scientifically or satisfactorily established.
+In his address recently mentioned on occasion of the twenty-first
+birthday of the _Origin of Species_, having spoken of various advances
+of our knowledge, as in comparative anatomy and embryology, which had
+helped to win acceptance for transformist doctrines, he thus continued:
+
+     But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove
+     dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence
+     in favour of evolution can be furnished only by palæontology. The
+     geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must,
+     when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a
+     negative answer; if evolution has taken place, there will its mark
+     be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.
+
+This is common sense. Evolution can claim to be a scientific truth, only
+so far as clear evidence is forthcoming that Evolution there has been.
+If the geological record be sufficiently complete to prove or disprove
+its claims, the question is settled for ever. If, on the other hand, the
+record be not complete enough for a conclusive verdict, it is, at least,
+hard to understand the grounds of such a statement as that the doctrine
+of Evolution has long since passed beyond the stage of discussion among
+scientific thinkers;[241] or that of Professor Marsh, that to doubt
+Evolution is to doubt Science; or of Professor Huxley himself[242]--"So
+far as the animal world is concerned, Evolution is no longer a
+speculation, but a matter of historical fact."
+
+This historical enquiry is accordingly all-important, and it is one
+which should be easy to undertake without any prepossessions, for it is
+hard to see upon what _à priori_ grounds these could rest. That there
+has been Evolution in one sense of the term is obvious,--that is to say,
+development of organic types from lower to higher forms, from the
+sea-weed or fungus to the oak or the rose, from the star-fish or the
+coral-insect, to the eagle or to man. The question is, not whether there
+has been such a progressive succession of forms, but whether one form
+has proceeded from another _genetically_, being produced in the same
+manner as individuals of a species now are. That this has been the case,
+as Professor Huxley tells us in the same address, is the cornerstone of
+evolutionary teaching. He appears indeed to restrict Evolution within
+the limits of classes and groups, but such restriction is so contrary to
+all his principles that the words which seem to imply it can scarcely be
+taken as having any definite significance. Should the appearance of
+different classes and groups require to be severally accounted for, we
+should be landed back in the system of separate creations against which
+he is never tired of inveighing.
+
+     The fundamental doctrine of all forms of the theory of evolution
+     applied to biology [he says] is that the innumerable species,
+     genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is
+     peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group,
+     from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of
+     descent.
+
+And, holding as he does that palæontology furnishes the necessary
+evidence, he thus continues:
+
+     And, in the view of the facts of geology, it follows that all
+     living animals and plants are the lineal descendants of those which
+     lived long before the Silurian epoch.
+
+Here is a plain issue, and one, as has been said, to be discussed
+without prejudice. That the innumerable forms of organic life should
+thus have been genetically derived one from another, is no more
+difficult to conceive than that they should have come into existence at
+all. Moreover, it appears to our minds almost a first principle that
+natural law must suffice to account for the phenomena of nature from
+beginning to end, and that any system is self-condemned which finds
+anywhere in these phenomena evidence of a non-natural, or supernatural,
+interposition. Has not such a theologian as Suarez, following St.
+Augustine, laid it down as an axiom[243] that God does not directly
+interfere with the operations of Nature, when He can effect His purposes
+through natural causes? Undoubtedly, too, it is difficult for our minds
+to imagine in what way, except through genetic evolution, the successive
+production of more and more developed types could be effected.
+
+But, as has before been observed, what seems to us probable is not
+therefore proved to be true. What we want are facts, and by facts we
+must be ready to abide. At the same time, it is not very easy to
+understand the supreme importance which evolutionists generally appear
+to attach to the descent of all living creatures from some _one_
+original, and their abhorrence of the idea that the power, whatever it
+was, which first produced life, may have operated repeatedly, at
+different epochs, to repeat the production. It seems to be assumed that
+this must imply "miracle" and interruption of the continuity of Nature,
+to admit which is irrational and unscientific. But since life did
+unquestionably once originate somehow, which Science makes no attempt to
+deny, why should it be so improper to suppose that it originated more
+than once, at various times and in various forms, and that,
+consequently, genetic descent with modification, or "Evolution," is not
+the explanation of typic development? As Sir J. W. Dawson writes[244]
+concerning the oyster tribe, whereof two species are found in the Coal
+Measures (one European and the other American), and a continuous
+succession of species ever since:
+
+     All these species may have proceeded from one origin, by descent
+     with modification, or, on the other hand, the same causes which led
+     to their origination in the Carboniferous may have operated again
+     and again.
+
+It must, however, be remembered that, if the theory of genetic descent
+with accumulation of minute modifications be the true explanation of the
+production of new forms, it necessarily follows, that could a complete
+record be forthcoming of the ancestry of any actual species, there would
+be found in that pedigree no distinction of species or genera, for no
+sharply marked lines of limitation would be discoverable. It would be
+like the case of a man who had been photographed every hour of his life
+from birth to old age;--immense though the difference might be between
+the two extremes, the gradations of change would at all points pass as
+imperceptibly into one another as do the phases of the moon. This
+consideration is both fundamental and obvious, yet it would seem to be
+almost universally ignored. It appears to be thought that, in order to
+demonstrate the fact of evolution, all that is needed is to find a form
+here and there, in some sense intermediate between others,--like the
+reptilian birds already mentioned. This would imply that the course of
+Evolution must be like that of an army, making long marches from point
+to point, and traceable only by the remains of its camp-fires: whereas
+it should be as that of a glacier continuously creeping on, and leaving
+its tracks at one point as much as another. What are wanted, therefore,
+as evidence for Evolution, are not isolated specific forms uniting some
+characteristics of those which they are supposed to connect,--as
+Nelson's men-of-war form a stepping-stone between the vessels of the
+Norsemen and the ironclads of the present day,--but a series sufficient
+to show, or at least to indicate, that all changes have been gradual and
+insensible, without the introduction at any point of a new element. To
+pursue the illustration, such a new element would be gunpowder or steam
+in the evolution of the battle-ship, for by no mere development could
+bows or javelins produce a cannon, or sailing ships a steamboat.
+
+Therefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches
+completeness, its testimony,--if it is to be in favour of
+Evolution--must tend more and more in this direction, and unless, in
+some instance at least, clear evidence be discoverable of the melting of
+one form into another, it cannot possibly be said that we have
+sufficient proof that such a process ever occurred. Mere graduated
+resemblance of isolated forms does not necessarily imply such
+transmutation, as we see for example in the methodical progression of
+shape, exhibited by various crystals, and even more remarkably in the
+affinities which we can recognize among what we know as elementary
+substances.
+
+There is another important point to be borne in mind. According to the
+teaching of Evolutionists such as Darwin or Haeckel,[245] every Species
+has originated from a single ancestor,--or, as they should rather say,
+from a single pair.
+
+If this were so, it would necessarily follow that every new form,
+originating in some particular spot of earth, would very gradually
+spread thence to other regions, fighting its way along. As Mr. Darwin
+acknowledges,[246] "The development by this means (i.e. Natural
+Selection) of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one
+progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the
+progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants."
+
+Of this gradual spread of new types there should, at least in some
+cases, be some palæontological evidence.
+
+It is likewise by no means easy to understand how species thus generated
+could stand solitary and isolated from kindred forms in the records of
+the earth. The pair of individuals which started a new persistent
+group,--its members all stamped with the same specific characters, while
+all around were in a state of flux and divergence,--differed from their
+immediate ancestors, as we have seen, only infinitesimally. They can
+have differed no more from many of their contemporaries, for all the
+lines of descent must ramify afresh in each generation, and so form a
+web rather than anything like a line. It is not very easy to understand
+how a pair here and there struck root and founded a species, while the
+thousands which jostled them round about failed to do so, for the others
+which survived longest must be supposed to have resembled them most
+nearly, and therefore to have participated in their advantages. At
+least, we should expect to find around them the débris of the multitude
+they vanquished in the struggle for existence.
+
+We are told, moreover, that, with hardly an exception, the organic forms
+found in a fossil state must be supposed to be the last of their
+special line of development, which terminated in them; so that neither
+can they be claimed as the direct ancestors of any other forms, fossil
+or living, nor can any others which are actually known be claimed as
+their progenitors. The genealogies supplied for almost all known
+species, extinct or existing, are admittedly conjectural, and as in the
+most famous instance of all, namely the supposed common ancestor of
+simians and men, the links are persistently "missing." Thus M. de
+Quatrefages, speaking of the human pedigree as set forth by Professor
+Haeckel, writes thus:[247]
+
+     All species, existing or extinct, are said to have been preceded by
+     _ancestral forms_ which have disappeared without leaving the
+     slightest vestige behind them. The _amphioxus_ itself, which more
+     than any other realizes the type of the group it represents, was
+     preceded, according to Haeckel, by the _provertebrate_, which no
+     man has ever seen, but of which, nevertheless, the Jena professor
+     gives us a figure, and describes the anatomy.
+
+Thus the number of forms postulated by the theory of genetic Evolution,
+must have been enormous beyond conception, in comparison with those
+belonging to the numerically insignificant groups which formed the mere
+extremities of branches on the genealogical tree.
+
+This being premised, we must ask what Geology has to tell us on the
+subject, and it will be well to begin by briefly recalling the main
+features of the geological record.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The stratified rocks comprising the crust of the earth, in which fossil
+plants and animals are found embedded, have evidently been formed at
+successive periods, chiefly by the agency of water, each formation
+having begun as a sediment like the mud or ooze at the bottom of our
+oceans and seas. Geological investigation has proved that the
+chronological order of the strata thus deposited can be satisfactorily
+determined, and they are found to divide themselves, in respect of the
+organisms they contain, into three great series, lying above the _Azoic_
+(or lifeless) rocks, older than them all.
+
+These series, beginning from the bottom, in which order we shall have to
+trace their history, are most conveniently named _Primary_, _Secondary_,
+and _Tertiary_, otherwise termed respectively, _Palœozoic_ ("ancient
+life"), _Mesozoic_ ("middle life"), and _Kainozoic_ ("recent life").
+Each of these again, contains various formations, or as we may call them
+volumes of its chronicle, each of which has its fixed place in order of
+sequence.
+
+Thus, always proceeding from below upwards, in the _Primary_ series,
+commencing with the _Laurentian_, we find successively the _Huronian_,
+_Cambrian_, _Silurian_, _Devonian_ or _Old Red Sandstone_,
+_Carboniferous_, and _Permian_.
+
+In the _Secondary_, the lowest formation is the _Triassic_ or _New Red
+Sandstone_, followed by the _Jurassic_ or _Oolite_, and the _Cretaceous_
+or _Chalk_.
+
+Finally the _Tertiary_ has three main divisions; the _Eocene_, or "dawn
+of the recent," _Miocene_, or "less recent," and _Pliocene_, or "more
+recent."
+
+Above these comes the series now in progress, variously called,
+_Quaternary_, _Post-Tertiary_, and _Pleistocene_, or "most recent."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It seems advisable to begin our investigation with the vegetable
+kingdom, as its classification being comparatively simple, the essential
+points of its development are easily followed. We cannot do better than
+start with the summary of its main divisions furnished by Mr.
+Carruthers.[248]
+
+     The vegetable kingdom is divided into sections, according to the
+     simplicity or complexity of structure. Associated with plants of
+     simple structure we find, as a rule, more elementary organs of
+     reproduction. Linnaeus made two great divisions, of flowering
+     (_Phanerogams_) and flowerless plants (_Cryptogams_).... The higher
+     group have flowers, with their stamens and pistils, which produce
+     seeds, while the lower group are without flowers and bear spores,
+     which are much simpler bodies than seeds. There are seven main
+     groups of spore-bearers--the _algæ_ or water-weeds; the _fungi_ or
+     mushroom family; the _lichens_, which cover old walls and rocks
+     with patches of coloured vegetation; the _mosses_ with their green
+     leaves and urn-shaped fruit; the _ferns_ with their large and
+     usually much-divided leaves, on the back or edges of which the
+     spores are borne; the _horsetails_, found in wet places, having
+     jointed hollow stems and spores produced in little cones; and the
+     _club-mosses_, upright or creeping leafy plants found on our
+     mountains. These seven groups may be arranged in two divisions,
+     according to the tissues of which they are formed. In the first
+     four the whole plant is composed of _cells_, while in the last
+     three a firm _vascular skeleton_ is present. These characters are
+     of great importance to the student of fossil plants.... The
+     flowering plants are more complex in their structure, and in their
+     organs of reproduction. The lowest group of these plants is the
+     _Gymnosperms_, or naked-seeded plants, like our yews and pines. The
+     other flowering plants (_Angiosperms_) have their seeds in a closed
+     fruit. These are divided into two sections from characters derived
+     from the embryo plant in the seed, depending on whether this minute
+     plant has one seed-leaf (_cotyledon_) or two, and so we have
+     _Monocotyledons_ and _Dicotyledons_. The higher group, or
+     dicotyledons, have been arranged into three divisions, according to
+     the complexity of the flower. In one large group (_Apetalae_) the
+     pistil and stamens are not surrounded by petals, e.g. in the oak
+     and the stinging nettle: superior to them are the plants
+     (_Monopetalae_) in which the petals form a cup, as the
+     blue-bell[249] and the gentian, while the highest group
+     (_Polypetalae_) have all the petals separate, as the buttercups and
+     roses.[250]
+
+It is most important to recollect that on evolutionary principles the
+first representatives of any such classes--and the same holds of animals
+as well--must have been generalized forms, representing the type in the
+rough, or, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase, exhibiting by comparison
+with their successors indefinite incoherent homogeneity, as contrasted
+with definite coherent heterogeneity. They should bear the same sort of
+relation to the finished articles worked up by Evolution as did the
+first bone-shaker bicycle to our latest patterns, or the news-sheets of
+Cromwell's time to the _Times_ or _Graphic_ of to-day. On this, as we
+saw in the last chapter, Mr. Darwin strongly insists, confessing at the
+same time that the Geological record alone can establish such progress
+as a fact.
+
+How these various classes of plants appear actually to have come upon
+the scene, Mr. Carruthers relates both in the paper from which we have
+just quoted, and at greater length in the address which he delivered as
+President of the Geologists' Association,[251] to the following effect.
+
+In the first place, he declares that although the geological record, at
+least as known to us, is very imperfect, and represents only an
+insignificant fragment of plant-history,
+
+     There is a large series of plant-remains completely and accurately
+     known which supply a fair representation of the great events of
+     plant-life that have taken place on the earth since Palæozoic
+     times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy
+     this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.
+
+There is--he goes on to say--indirect evidence of the existence of
+vegetable life, long before we find any actual remains. Such indirect
+evidence is afforded in the first place by the abundance during this
+period of animal life, needing plants for its sustenance, and secondly
+by the enormous quantity of carbon in the rocks, which must have been
+secreted from the atmosphere by vegetable tissues. There are also
+certain surface marks or impressions occasionally to be found, which are
+probably due to plants of a soft and perishable character like the
+cellular cryptogams, and which although extremely vague and undefined,
+at least do not contradict the evolutionist, who regards them as
+evidence that the _Algæ_ were, as according to him they ought to have
+been, the primeval plants. Mr. Carruthers adds a caution however, which
+can find its application in other instances as well:
+
+     While making this admission in relation to the vegetation of these
+     older rocks, I must protest against the practice of completing the
+     record of life forms, by filling in particular groups without any
+     authority except the writer's impression of an adopted hypothesis,
+     and then basing arguments on these assumptions in support of the
+     hypothesis which created them. So completely has
+
+VEGETABLE DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               | Post Tertiary.|                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary.  {| Pliocene.     |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Miocene.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Eocene.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Secondary. {| Chalk.        | Dicotyledons (Apetalæ, Polypetalæ, |
+              {|               |   Sympetalæ).                      |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Oolite.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Trias.        |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |               |                                    |
+              {| Permian.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Carboniferous.| Monocotyledons.                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {|               |                                    |
+              {| Devonian, or  | Clubmosses, Horsetails, Ferns,     |
+              {| Old Red       |   Gymnosperms.                     |
+              {| Sandstone.    |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Primary.   {| Silurian.     | } Cellular Cryptogams.             |
+              {| Cambrian.     | }                                  |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Huronian.     | } Indications of Plants,           |
+              {| Laurentian.   | }   not determinable.              |
+               +===================+================================+
+               | AZOIC.        |                                    |
+
+     phylogenetic [or racial] evolution become the creed of some leading
+     naturalists that they unwittingly proceed in this manifestly
+     unphilosophical method. But it is a first axiom, though one often
+     forgotten, in this as in every scientific enquiry, that no step can
+     be made in advance which is not based on fact.
+
+After this initial stage, the story becomes much clearer, and at the
+same time less easy to reconcile with evolutionary requirements.
+
+Instead of making their appearance singly and successively, and passing
+imperceptibly one into another, all three groups of Vascular Cryptogams,
+and the Gymnosperms into the bargain, come on the stage together, in the
+Devonian strata; and Monocotyledons in the lower Carboniferous
+immediately following. There is no trace whatever of the development of
+any of these forms from the earlier cellular cryptogams:
+
+     But [says Mr. Carruthers] the evolution of the Vascular Cryptogams,
+     and the Phanerogams, from the green seaweeds, through the
+     liverworts and mosses, if it took place, must have been carried on
+     through a long succession of ages, and by an innumerable series of
+     advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the
+     early water forms or of the later and still more numerous dry-land
+     forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the
+     fucoids in the Llandovery rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular
+     organisms elsewhere, were, at least, fitted to preserve _some_
+     record of the necessarily rich floras, if they existed, which
+     through immense ages, led by minute steps to the Conifer
+     [_Gymnosperm_] and Monocotyledon of these Palæozoic Rocks.
+
+     Further, these earliest plants are not generalized forms of the
+     various tribes to which they belong, but they are as highly
+     specialized as any subsequent representatives of the particular
+     group to which they belong, and wherever they differ from later
+     plants, it is in the possession of a more perfect organization.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From all which facts Mr. Carruthers thus argues:
+
+     The complete absence of intermediate forms, and the sudden and
+     contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated
+     groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
+     countenance from the plant-record of these ancient rocks. The whole
+     evidence is against evolution, and there is none for it.[252]
+
+Dicotyledons furnish evidence of especial value. On account of their
+higher organization, they are easily distinguished from both
+Monocotyledons and Gymnosperms; and they present features which clearly
+differentiate them amongst themselves. They did not make their entry
+till after a long interval--and their remains are therefore to be found
+in strata comparatively recent and better known to us than those of the
+older rocks. It is in the Chalk, the newest of the Secondary or Mesozoic
+formations, that they first exhibit themselves, and they do it in the
+same fashion as their predecessors.
+
+When the Dicotyledons appear in the upper cretaceous beds,
+representatives of the three great groups [_Apetalæ_, _Monopetalæ_,
+_Polypetalæ_] appear together in the same deposit. Moreover, these
+divisions are represented, not by generalized types, but by
+differentiated forms, which, during the intervening epochs, have not
+developed even into higher generic groups.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+And, here again, there is no vestige of intermediate species, linking
+dicotyledonous plants with other types.
+
+     No trace of a plant belonging to this great division has yet been
+     detected in any earlier stratum [than the upper chalk]. There is no
+     evidence whatever for Haeckel's statement that the _Apetalæ_
+     probably existed in the Triassic and Jurassic periods.... It cannot
+     be doubted that the conditions favourable to the preservation of
+     Monocotyledons and Equisetums would have secured the preservation
+     of some of the _Apetalæ_, had they existed. This absence can be
+     accounted for only on the supposition that they formed no part of
+     the then existing vegetation. And in the deposits older than the
+     Trias, or in any subsequent deposits, no intermediate form has been
+     detected,--no Gymnosperm or Monocotyledon which exhibits in any
+     point of its structure a modification towards the more highly
+     organized Dicotyledon.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Nor, on the same authority, is this all.
+
+     It is equally important in its bearing on the hypothesis of genetic
+     evolution that the generic groups above named have persisted from
+     the first known appearance of Dicotyledons, throughout the whole of
+     the intervening ages, and still hold their places unchanged among
+     the existing forms of vegetation. The persistence of generic and
+     specific types, and the certain knowledge we possess of the life of
+     many existing species of Phanerogams and Cryptogams which have come
+     down through the Glacial Epoch, have not been sufficiently
+     considered in their bearing on the hypothesis.
+
+We have already seen something of an example which illustrates this
+point in a remarkable manner,--that of _Salix polaris_, the willow which
+has so obstinately preserved its specific identity amid great stress of
+circumstances. It belongs to a very variable genus--one in which if
+anywhere evidence of genetic development might be looked for. Yet it is
+found that since a period prior to the great Ice Age, or Glacial epoch,
+it has remained absolutely unchanged. At such a rate, we cannot but ask,
+how long would Evolution take to get back to the generalized type-form,
+or common ancestor, of the genus _Salix_, and then to that of the Order
+_Salicineae_, which includes poplars as well as willows. "The Ordinal
+form, if it ever existed, must necessarily be much older than the period
+of the upper Cretaceous rocks, that is than the period to which the
+earliest known Dicotyledons belong."
+
+And it is obvious that when we had got back to the parental stock of the
+willow tribe, we should still, as evolutionists, be separated by a gulf
+still vastly greater from the common ancestor of all Dicotyledons, of
+oaks, apple-trees, primroses, and daisies no less than of willows and
+poplars.
+
+The significance of all these various facts is thus summed up:
+
+     The whole evidence supplied by fossil plants is, then, opposed to
+     the hypothesis of genetic evolution, and especially the sudden and
+     simultaneous appearance of the most highly organized plants at
+     particular stages in the past history of the globe, and the entire
+     absence amongst fossil plants of any forms intermediate between
+     existing classes or families. The facts of palæontological botany
+     are opposed to Evolution, but they testify to Development, to
+     progression from lower to higher types. The cellular Algæ preceded
+     the Vascular Cryptogams and the Gymnosperms of the Newer Palæozoic
+     rocks, and these were speedily followed by Monocotyledons, and, at
+     a much later period, by Dicotyledons. But the earliest
+     representatives of these various sections of the vegetable kingdom
+     were not generalized forms, but as highly organized as recent
+     forms, and in many cases more highly organized: and the divisions
+     were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as
+     decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.
+
+So much for the vegetable world. As for the animal, although the number
+and complexity of its divisions makes it less easy to present so
+complete a sketch in these moderate limits, the features of its history
+are very similar. As Sir J. W. Dawson recounts it:[253]
+
+ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |  Post Tertiary.   |  Man and Modern Mammals.       |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+             { |    Pliocene.      |                                |
+             { +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary. { |    Miocene.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Eocene.        | Placental Mammals (Ungulates,  |
+             { |                   | Unguiculates, Rodents,         |
+             { |                   | Whales, Bats).                 |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Chalk.         |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Secondary.{ |    Oolite.        | Birds.                         |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Trias.         | Marsupial Mammals.             |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Permian.       | Reptiles (various orders).     |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Carboniferous.   |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Devonian, or     | Millipeds, Insects, Spiders,   |
+             { | Old Red Sandstone.| Scorpions, Fish, Batrachians,  |
+             { |                   | etc.                           |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Primary.  { |   Silurian.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Cambrian.       | Shell Fish, Sponges, Molluscs, |
+             { |                   | Crustaceans, Worms, etc.       |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Huronian.       |  }                             |
+             { +-------------------+--}-----------------------------|
+             { |   Laurentian.     |  } Protozoa.                   |
+               +===================+================================+
+               |    AZOIC.         |                                |
+
+In the Cambrian age, we obtain a vast and varied accession of living
+things, which appear at once, as if by a sudden and simultaneous
+production of many kinds of animals. Here we find evidence that the sea
+swarmed with creatures near akin to those which still inhabit it, and
+nearly as varied.... Had we been able to drop our dredge into the
+Cambrian or Silurian ocean, we should have brought up representatives of
+all the leading types of invertebrate life that exist in the modern
+seas--different, it is true, in details of structure from those now
+existing, but constructed on the same principles, and filling the same
+places in nature.
+
+In the latter half of the Palæozoic we find a number of higher forms
+breaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of the
+early Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great
+variety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, singularly
+enough, belonging in many cases to groups now very rare; while the
+commoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, Batrachian
+Reptiles now abound, some of them very high in the sub-class to which
+they belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and millipedes appear as well
+as land-snails: and this not in one locality only, but over the whole
+northern hemisphere.... Nor do they show any signs of an unformed or
+imperfect state.... The compound eyes and filmy wings of insects, the
+teeth, bones, and scales of batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly
+finished, and many quite as complex and elegant, as the animals of the
+present day.
+
+This wonderful Palæozoic age was, however, but a temporary state of the
+earth. It passed away, and was replaced by the Mesozoic, emphatically
+the age of Reptiles, when animals of that type attained to colossal
+magnitude, to variety of function and structure, to diversity of habitat
+in sea and on land, altogether unexampled in their degraded descendants
+of modern times.... Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords
+appeared a few small and lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming
+age.[254] Birds also made their appearance.
+
+The Kainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of Mammals and of Man. In it the
+great reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are replaced on
+land and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with those now
+living, though differing as to genera and species. So greatly indeed did
+mammalian life abound in this period that in the middle part of the
+Tertiary most of the leading groups were represented by more numerous
+species than at present, while many types then existing
+
+     have now no representatives. At the close of this great and
+     wonderful procession of living beings comes Man himself--the last
+     and crowning triumph of creation the head, thus far, of life on the
+     earth.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.
+
+In the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested
+in higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of
+new forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the
+medium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
+
+The _Supposed line of continuous Evolution,_ indicates the gradual
+course which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian
+principles, by accumulation of minute differences in successive
+generations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance
+of highly differentiated types, as spoken of by palæontologists.
+
+[_To face page 227._]]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one other remark:[255]
+
+     There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time
+     one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another....
+     On the other hand, we constantly find species replaced by others
+     entirely new, and this without any transition. The two classes of
+     facts are essentially different, though often confounded by
+     evolutionists; and though it is possible to point out in the newer
+     geological formations some genera and species allied to others
+     which have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms
+     proceeded from the earlier, still, as the connecting links cannot
+     be found, this is mere supposition, not scientific certainty.
+     Further, it proceeds on the principle of arbitrary choice of
+     certain forms out of many, without any evidence of genetic
+     connexion.
+
+Having given a tabular view of Geological periods and Life-epochs,
+similar to those presented above, our author remarks:[256]
+
+     If in the table above we were to represent diagrammatically the
+     development of animals and plants, this would appear not as a
+     smooth and continuous stream, but as a series of great waves, each
+     rising abruptly, and then descending and flowing on at a lower
+     level along with the remains of those preceding it.
+
+And here may be noticed an observation made amongst others by the Comte
+de Saporta[257] on the remarkable parallelism of Animal and Vegetable
+development. After a period in which these kingdoms were respectively
+represented by aquatic _Algæ_ and _Protozoa_, land animals and land
+plants appear to have come in much at the same epoch; and afterwards
+dicotyledonous plants immediately preceded the advent of mammals.
+
+Mr. Mivart is of like mind with the others we have heard. "The mass of
+palæontological evidence," he writes,[258] "is indeed overwhelmingly
+against minute and gradual modification." He points out, with the _North
+British_ Reviewer so frequently quoted, that had the later forms of life
+descended from the earlier, through such a series of imperceptible
+gradations as is imagined, the probability would be that no two fossil
+specimens would be exactly alike, whereas in fact numbers are found of
+certain particular patterns, and none whatever between them, fossil
+animals and plants falling naturally into species, genera, families, and
+other categories just like those of the present day.
+
+It is this total absence of graduated series, linking different forms
+together, that is the great and fundamental difficulty in the way of
+genetic evolution. Yet this seems very seldom to be realized, and it
+seems constantly to be assumed that in order to establish the genetic
+continuity of two creatures no more is required than to discover
+another standing more or less between them. Thus in the most famous of
+all instances, how often do we hear of "the missing link" between man
+and ape,--as though should a generalized form be disclosed, which might
+be considered a common ancestor, the question of man's simian origin
+would be finally settled. In the same way, as we have seen, the
+existence of birds with reptilian features, is taken by some as
+conclusive proof that birds and reptiles have descended from one stock.
+But what is most imperatively wanted, is persistently wanting,--namely
+some evidence of a series in which one form passes to another, as in a
+dissolving view. And yet, genetic evolutionists must suppose such series
+to have been the universal rule throughout the whole course of life on
+earth.
+
+     Assuredly [writes M. de Quatrefages][259] is it not singularly
+     unfortunate for the evolutionary theory that so many facts which
+     tell against it should have been preserved in the scraps of
+     Nature's great book which remain to us, and that invariably those
+     which would have told in its favour were recorded in lost volumes
+     and missing leaves?
+
+In some particular instances the absence of any trace of intermediate
+forms is especially significant. The tribe of Bats, for instance, is a
+very singular one. The wings, in which form the fore-limbs are
+specialized, represent the same elements as our own hands; and other
+modifications of the same members have produced the paws of cats and
+dogs, the hoofs of horses and cattle, and the flippers of whales and
+porpoises,--to mention no others. What countless hosts of the Bat's
+ancestors must have lived and died while by accumulation of minute
+differences the primitive generalized limb whence all these diverse
+forms originated, was being turned into a wing capable of flight. Yet of
+all these no vestige is to be discovered. "Whenever the remains of bats
+have been found," says Mr. Mivart,[260] "they have presented the exact
+type of existing forms." The same, he tells us, holds good of other
+flying creatures--birds and pterodactyles--(or flying lizards--now
+wholly extinct). No trace of any of these is forthcoming while their
+wings were in the making. "Yet had such a slow mode of origin as
+Darwinians [and genetic evolutionists generally] contend for, operated
+exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that bats, birds,
+and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a
+single relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different
+forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional
+condition!"
+
+There are other creatures which stand in solitary isolation, with no
+fragments of a bridge to connect them with the general body. Such is the
+rattlesnake's family, whose pedigree, Mr. Mivart declares,[261] we
+cannot even imagine--"The ancestors of the rattlesnake are beyond our
+mental vision."
+
+     But the number of forms [says the same author][262] represented by
+     many individuals, yet by _no transitional ones_, is so great that
+     only two or three can be selected as examples. Thus those
+     remarkable fossil reptiles, the Icthyosauria and Plesiosauria,
+     extended, through the secondary period, probably over the greater
+     part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met
+     with in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again,
+     with their modern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant
+     forms alone have been found, but no series of transitional ones
+     indicating minutely the line of descent. This group, the whales, is
+     a very marked one, and it is curious, on Darwinian principles, that
+     so few instances tending to indicate its mode of origin should have
+     presented themselves. Here, as in the bats, we might surely expect
+     that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages of its
+     development would have been left.
+
+Professor W. C. Williamson likewise remarks[263] on these _lacunæ_ which
+persistently occur at crucial points:
+
+     If [he writes] these generic types [of plants] first came before us
+     in such clearly defined forms, when and where did the transitional
+     states make their appearance? The extreme evolutionists constantly
+     affirm of those who believe in special creation that they
+     "habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote
+     from human observation," and that "the conception survives only in
+     connexion with imagined places where the order of organic phenomena
+     is unknown." It is legitimate to retort upon them that they as
+     habitually resort to "strata now covered by the sea"--to rocks
+     "from which all traces of such fossils as they probably included
+     have been obliterated by igneous action," and to mysterious
+     "migrations from pre-existing continents to continents that were
+     step by step emerging from the ocean." Unfortunately, so far as the
+     vegetable kingdom is concerned, we have as yet failed to discover
+     any traces of these mysterious strata or hypothetical continents in
+     which the transitions from one plant-type to another were being
+     brought about. The believers in special creations are not the only
+     reasoners who have made free use of hypothetical possibilities.
+
+He presently adds:
+
+     We have no evidence that unaided Nature has produced a single new
+     type during the historic period. We can only conclude that the
+     wonderful outburst of genetic activity which characterized the
+     Tertiary age was due to some unknown factor, which then operated
+     with an energy to which the earth was a stranger, both previously
+     and subsequently. The knowledge of this factor is what we need in
+     order to perfect our philosophy; and until we obtain that
+     knowledge, many things must remain unaccounted for, so far as
+     primeval vegetation is concerned.
+
+And elsewhere Professor Williamson reiterates the same idea:[264]
+
+     I contend stoutly [he says] that, however numerous may be the facts
+     that sustain the doctrine of evolution (and I am prepared to admit
+     that there are many that do so in a remarkable manner), this
+     unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition of some
+     factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the
+     evolutionist school.
+
+In the record of fossil fishes he finds some features which are
+particularly hard to harmonize with any theory of genetic
+evolution.[265] Amongst the very earliest representatives of this class,
+even in the upper Silurian, are found remains of sharks, in his opinion
+the highest order of fish, and in the Devonian and Carboniferous above,
+of _Ganoids_ armour clad, like the sturgeon. But nowhere below the Chalk
+do we find a single scale of _Cycloids_ or _Ctenoids_, which in regard
+alike of the scales themselves, of the nervous system and of the
+reproductive organs, are much below the sharks, and not above the
+_Ganoids_. To complicate matters still more, however, the skeleton of
+_Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_ is more highly organized than that of the
+others, and it is thus equally impossible to describe them as
+progressive or as retrogressive types.[266]
+
+Over and above this absence of intermediate or link forms, the witnesses
+who have been cited insist on the fact that those earliest found are
+not simple or generalized representatives of their respective types, as
+the theory of genetic evolution requires them to be, but are as
+perfectly finished and specialized as those appearing in later ages. To
+their testimony on this point may be added that of Professor Huxley, who
+while frankly confessing that he would be glad enough to find evidence
+in favour of such progressive modification, was constrained by his love
+of scientific truth to bear witness as follows:[267]
+
+     The only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure--positive
+     evidence--fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification
+     towards a less embryonic, or less generalized type, in a great many
+     groups of animals of long-continued geological existence. In these
+     groups there is abundant evidence of variation--none of what is
+     generally understood as progression; and if the known geological
+     record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the
+     whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily
+     progressive development can stand, for the numerous orders and
+     families cited afford no trace of such a process.
+
+So again he declared at a later period[268] summarizing what he had said
+previously:
+
+     In answer to the question, What does an impartial survey of the
+     positively ascertained truths of palæontology testify in relation
+     to the common doctrines of progressive modification?... I reply: It
+     negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of
+     such modification, or demonstrates such modification as has
+     occurred to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that
+     modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earliest
+     members of a long-existing group were more generalized in structure
+     than the later ones.
+
+He went on, however, to say, on this latter occasion, that discoveries
+made in the interval afforded much ground for softening "the Brutus-like
+severity" which eight years before he had exhibited in this regard, by
+disclosing such evidence as he had declared to be lacking. From the
+samples, however, which he produced, it does not appear that this fresh
+testimony comes to very much; and in view of the observations with which
+he accompanied the exposition, it would seem that in only one instance
+did it appear to himself thoroughly satisfactory.
+
+     Every fossil [he said][269] which takes an intermediate place
+     between forms of life already known, may be said, so far as it is
+     intermediate, to be evidence in favour of Evolution, inasmuch as it
+     shows a possible road by which Evolution may have taken place. But
+     the mere discovery of such a form does not, in itself, prove that
+     Evolution took place by and through it, nor does it constitute
+     more than presumptive evidence in favour of Evolution in general.
+
+     It is easy[270] to accumulate probabilities--hard to make out some
+     particular case in such a way that it will stand rigorous
+     criticism. After much search, however, I think that such a case is
+     to be made out in favour of the pedigree of the Horse.
+
+Of this famous instance we have already heard, and since it will be
+examined at length in the following chapter, we will not dwell further
+upon it here.
+
+So obvious indeed is this deficiency for evolutionary requirements of
+the Geological record, that Professor Haeckel attempts to supply the
+want by boldly interpolating a number of periods during which the
+metamorphoses occurred, but of which no record was left. He assumes that
+between the epochs of depression, when fossils were deposited beneath
+the water, there were other epochs of elevation when the land was dry
+and no deposits could occur, and he supposes that the abrupt changes of
+flora and fauna exhibited by successive formations, are due to the lapse
+of time of which we have no organic record in what he styles these
+"Ante-periods."
+
+As to this summary mode of loosing the Gordian knot, it will be
+sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's verdict: "I confess this is
+wholly incredible to me."[271] And although in his favourable review of
+Haeckel's book[272] he showed himself far more tolerant of gratuitous
+speculations, than his utterances on other occasions might have led us
+to expect, upon this point he declared: "I fundamentally and entirely
+disagree with Professor Haeckel."
+
+We may sum up the testimonies of which the above are representative in
+the words of two authorities by no means hostile to Evolution. M. Edmond
+Perrier,[273] having shewn how this theory is suggested by the
+successive developments of type, and how the phenomena of organic life
+seem to harmonize with it, thus continues:
+
+     Unfortunately, when we descend to details, such palæontological
+     gaps present themselves that every sort of objection is possible.
+     The chain which morphology has allowed us to piece together is
+     continually snapped when we essay to travel back into the past....
+     The art of distinguishing realities from phantoms of the
+     imagination is what has made modern science so great and so mighty.
+     She is strong enough to win honour by avowing ignorance, and
+     because men see her always determined to speak the truth, they
+     gradually realize that she is not dangerous.
+
+And in his Presidential address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1902,
+Professor S. H. Vines thus expressed himself as to the genealogical
+table of organic life, which ever since the doctrine of Evolution was
+accepted, it has been sought to construct:
+
+     Though here and there fragments of the mosaic seem to have been
+     successfully pieced together, the main outlines, even, of the great
+     picture are as yet but dimly discernible.
+
+     The fact that organic Evolution should have proceeded so far as it
+     has within such limits of time as may reasonably be allowed,
+     admits, to my mind, of no other interpretation than that variation
+     is not indeterminate, but, as Lamarck and Nägeli have urged, there
+     must exist in living matter a certain inherent tendency or bias in
+     favour of variation in the higher direction. It is this tendency or
+     bias that I venture to regard as the primordial factor.
+
+But it is precisely such an inherent tendency of organic life to develop
+on predetermined lines, which Darwinians and other advocates of
+Evolution by the agency of physical forces alone, vehemently repudiate
+as fatal to their whole system.
+
+     [Since Professor Williamson wrote, the opinion has been adopted
+     that for the very reason which induced him to place the Sharks
+     above the _Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_, their relative positions
+     should be reversed. The Sharks being a more "generalized" type,
+     with features more akin to those of land-dwelling reptiles, and the
+     others more "specialized" for purely aquatic conditions, the
+     latter, it is argued, are a higher evolutionary product. As a
+     necessary corollary it is assumed that vertebrate life originated,
+     not, as had been supposed, in the sea, but in swamps or lagoons on
+     the shore-line. It must, however, remain a question how far the
+     facility with which theories can thus be modified according to
+     requirements, is calculated to inspire confidence in them.]
+
+
+
+
+XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+
+We have heard Mr. Carruthers' declaration, based upon his survey of
+palæontological botany, "The whole evidence is against Evolution, and
+there is none in favour of it."
+
+Remarkably enough, at almost the same period[274] Professor Huxley
+concluded a discussion of palæontological evidence with a precisely
+contrary pronouncement--"The whole evidence is in favour of Evolution,
+and there is none against it." On other occasions, also, he distinctly
+maintained that it is just this line of enquiry which conclusively
+establishes Evolution as no longer a theory, but an historical fact. To
+such a conclusion, he tells us,[275] "an acute and critical-minded
+investigator is led by the facts of palæontology;"--and, again, "If the
+doctrine of Evolution had not existed, palæontologists must have
+invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of
+the remains of the Tertiary mammalia."
+
+Such declarations clearly challenge consideration, especially when it
+is remembered how strict were the views which Professor Huxley professed
+as to the necessity of proofs for our beliefs,--"that it is wrong for a
+man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
+unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
+certainty."[276]
+
+We therefore turn naturally to his lectures on Evolution, wherein he
+treats the palæontological argument _ex professo_, and we find that his
+verdict is based upon a few selected instances, such as that of the
+reptilian birds already mentioned, which he considers favourable to
+Evolution, and one which he terms _demonstrative_,--namely that of the
+Horse. This he treats in some detail; in regard of it he delivers the
+positive judgment which we have just heard, and it therefore in a
+special manner demands our attention.
+
+As furnishing evidence for the history of the horse, two features are of
+special importance, his limbs, and his teeth. Of these we may confine
+our attention to the former, as being, at once, sufficient for our
+purpose, and within the scope of ordinary observation.
+
+The horse family, or _Equidae_, belong to the tribe of Ungulates, or
+hoofed animals, some points of whose anatomy require to be considered in
+relation to our own.
+
+Taking first the fore-limbs. What we call the "knee" of a horse is in
+reality the wrist,--the true knee, or rather elbow, being what we call
+the "shoulder." Below the knee comes the "cannon bone," corresponding to
+the middle bone of the hand, and below it the "pastern," "coronary," and
+"coffin" bones, representing the joints of the solitary middle-finger,
+while the hoof is its greatly enlarged and thickened nail. Similarly, in
+the hind-limbs; the "hock" is veritably the ankle, and again the lateral
+digits are suppressed, the middle toe alone remaining.
+
+It thus appears that an Ungulate such as the horse, is an extreme
+modification of the general Mammalian plan, his members being highly
+specialized for a certain kind of work. His leg and hoof, as the theory
+of genetic Evolution declares, have been gradually fashioned to their
+present shape from an original limb in the common Mammalian ancestor,
+which by other modifications has equally produced the totally different
+members possessed by other mammals.
+
+That the horse is descended from a race bearing more than one digit on
+each extremity, seems to be indicated by the splint-bones which are
+found on the cannon-bone of both fore and hind legs, and which represent
+the second and fourth finger and toe, and also by recorded occurrences
+of polydactyle horses, one of which has a distinguished place in history
+as Julius Cæsar's charger.[277]
+
+That the animal as we now know him is the lineal descendant of various
+other ungulates, in whom the digits were gradually reduced from the
+normal number of five, to their present solitary representative,
+Professor Huxley and other Evolutionists hold to be demonstrated by the
+discovery in due succession of various equine specimens, in which this
+diminution is gradually exhibited.
+
+The remains of these animals are all found in _Tertiary_ strata, of
+which, it will be remembered, there are three great divisions, the
+_Eocene_, _Miocene_, and _Pliocene_, the first named being the most
+ancient, and the last the most recent.
+
+The genus _Equus_, or at least our modern horse, _Equus caballus_, can
+be traced no further back than the _Post-tertiary_ period. The
+succession of forms leading up thither commences at the bottom of the
+_Eocene_, and extends to the upper _Pliocene_.
+
+Following Professor Huxley's guidance, we trace the pedigree downwards,
+thus:
+
+     Firstly, there is the true horse. Next we have the American
+     Pliocene form, _Pliohippus_. In the conformation of its limbs it
+     presents some very slight deviations from the ordinary horse. Then
+     comes _Protohippus_, which represents the European _Hipparion_,
+     having one large digit and two small ones on each foot.... But it
+     is more valuable than _Hipparion_, for certain peculiarities tend
+     to show that the latter is rather a member of a collateral branch,
+     than a form in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward
+     order in time, is the _Miohippus_, [_Miocene_], which corresponds
+     pretty nearly with the _Anchitherium_ of Europe. It presents three
+     complete toes--one large median and two smaller lateral ones; and
+     there is a rudiment of that digit which answers to the little
+     finger of the human hand. The European record stops here: in the
+     American Tertiaries, the series of ancestral equine forms is
+     continued into the Eocene. An older Miocene form, _Mesohippus_, has
+     three toes in front, with a large splint-like rudiment representing
+     the little finger, and three toes behind. The _radius_ and _ulna_,
+     _tibia_ and _fibula_,[278] are distinct. Most important of all is
+     the _Orohippus_, from the Eocene. Here we find four complete toes
+     on the front limb, three toes on the hind-limb, a well developed
+     _ulna_, a well developed _fibula_.
+
+Here, when the lecture which we are considering was delivered, the
+series terminated:--and upon the facts as above given Professor Huxley
+thus commented:
+
+     Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge
+     extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely
+     that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
+     principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies
+     us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene
+     deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have
+     yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four
+     complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
+     front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind
+     foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be
+     more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in
+     which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole
+     series must have taken its origin.
+
+Finally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the
+lecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals,
+_Eohippus_, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might
+first be looked for. "This," adds Professor Huxley, "is what I mean by
+demonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is
+in favour of Evolution, and there is none against it."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+That these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all
+attention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are
+conclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many
+considerations require to be carefully weighed.
+
+(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other
+instances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really
+wanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species
+gradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have
+heard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated,
+for each belongs to a different _genus_,[279] which shows that the
+differences between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther
+apart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for
+both of these are classed in the genus _equus_,--or than the Bengal
+tiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus
+_felis_.
+
+These various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and
+if they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway,
+we ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those
+particular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very
+distinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge,
+yet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found,
+or, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were,
+can it be said that the story of the fossil _equidae_ furnishes
+convincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities
+these various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that
+affinities necessarily imply descent.
+
+There is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that
+Professor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of _Eohippus_,
+and specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present.
+In the same way, Professor Marsh[280] anticipates and describes a still
+more remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been
+found, he has provided an appellation, _Hippops_. But if either
+Professor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted
+that we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary
+outpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life
+whereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence
+that the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something
+analogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their
+discovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that
+their actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that
+it is very definitely fixed.
+
+(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of
+which Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him,
+_Equus caballus_, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced
+to America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been
+horses in America previously,--belonging to the genus _Equus_, perhaps
+even to the species _caballus_,--they had, however, been long extinct,
+and no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree
+given by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals,
+to which category belong all whose names terminate in _-hippus_, and
+these cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European
+horse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:[281]
+
+     In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,
+     beginning with the _Eohippus_ of the Eocene--an animal the size of
+     a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind--and these have
+     been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of
+     America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely
+     on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the
+     modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits
+     often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other
+     hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to
+     _Palæotherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely
+     indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse
+     belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too
+     many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,
+     and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American
+     horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,
+     descendants of _Palæotherium_, not of _Eohippus_; but if we had not
+     known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to
+     prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple
+     consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are
+     not of the nature of scientific evidence.
+
+(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much
+diversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines
+of ancestry favoured--(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited
+in our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr.
+Mivart,[282] (4) By Mr. Lydekker,[283] (5) In The _Evolution of the
+Horse_, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This
+last gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of
+the American Horse alone.
+
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   _Huxley._  |_British_      | _Mivart._   |_Lydekker._        |_American
+              |_Museum Case._ |             |                   | Museum._
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  Equus       |Equus          |Equus        |Equus              |Equus
+  Pliohippus  |               |             |                   |
+  Protohippus |Hipparion      |Hipparion    |Hipparion          |Hipparion
+              |               |Protohippus  |Protohippus        |Hypohippus
+  Miohippus   |               |Anchitherium |Anchitherium       |Merychippus
+  Anchitherium|Anchitherium   |             |{Anchilophus       |{Mesohippus
+  Mesohippus  |Protohippus    |Pachynolophus|{(_form allied to_)|{ (_2 species_)
+              |{Mesohippus    |             |                   |Epihippus
+  Orohippus   |{ (_2 species_)|             |{Hyracotherium     |Protorohippus
+  Eohippus    |Hyracotherium  |Phenacodus   |{Systemodon        |Eohippus
+              |               |             |                   |_An undiscovered
+              |               |             |                   | ancestor_
+              |               |             |                   | (Hippops)
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+It will be observed, that whereas _Hipparion_ is disallowed by Professor
+Huxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other
+genealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of _Equus_. Also that
+in all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used
+indifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that
+there is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would
+likewise appear that even the existence of _Eohippus_ himself is not
+beyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name
+always has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities
+give an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still
+remains to be discovered.
+
+There is something even more remarkable.
+
+
+DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIDÆ.
+
+                        / +---------------------------------------------------+
+               Recent. {  | Equus Caballus.{*}                                |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  | Equus Stenonis.{*}{**} E. Sivalensis.{*}{**} &c.  |
+          Quaternary.  {  |     Hippidium.{**}  E. Americanus.{**} &c.        |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                       {  | Pliohippus.                                       |
+           /           {  |                                                   |
+          {  Pliocene. {  | Hipparion.{*}{**}  Protohippus.                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / |                                                   |
+TERTIARY. {            {  |                                                   |
+          {   Miocene. {  | Hypohippus.  Parahippus.                          |
+          {            {  | Miohippus.  Anchitherium.{*}                      |
+          {            {  | Merychippus.                                      |
+          {            {  | Mesohippus.                                       |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / | Epihippus.                                        |
+          {            {  | Orohippus.  Hyracotherium.{*}                     |
+          {    Eocene. {  | Protorohippus.   Pachynolophus.{*}                |
+          {            {  | Eohippus.                                         |
+           \           {  | Phenacodus.                                       |
+                        \ |                                                   |
+                          +---------------------------------------------------+
+                          |                                                   |
+                          | Hippops (undiscovered).                           |
+              SECONDARY.  |                                                   |
+                          |   No trace of Mammals except small                |
+                          |       Marsupials and Insectivora.                 |
+                          |                                                   |
+
+{* Indicates an inhabitant of the Old World. All others are American.}
+
+{** "Not in direct line of ancestry."}
+
+Huxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was
+delivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had
+declared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other
+genealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something
+really satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870--which he thus indicated
+as scientifically established--was totally different from that of 1876,
+and was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter.
+In 1870 the ancestry presented for _Equus_ consisted of _Hipparion_,
+_Anchitherium_, and _Plagiolophus_. Of these, _Hipparion_ was in 1876
+specifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: _Anchitherium_ was
+displaced by _Miohippus_, and although we are told that these creatures
+"correspond pretty nearly," the Horse cannot be descended from _both_,
+especially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally
+_Plagiolophus_ disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing
+could more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that
+an authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley
+should thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after
+information to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures
+happened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of _Hipparion_ to ancestral
+equine rank to be beyond dispute. "No one will deny," he wrote,[284]
+"that the _Hipparion_ is intermediate between the existing horse and
+certain older ungulate forms." Yet, as we see, this has been denied by
+his champion Huxley himself.
+
+(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various
+equine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed.
+As a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton,
+so that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really
+like, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to
+him. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of
+these as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse
+descended from it. Thus in _Hippidium_, an American genus closely allied
+to _Equus_, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate
+in claws.[285] One species of _Hippidium_ is known only by a solitary
+tooth. Of _Hyracotherium_ only the skull has been found: of _Orohippus_
+only parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of _Epihippus_, "only
+incomplete specimens."[286] Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking
+of the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses
+himself:[287]
+
+     Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated
+     the three animals [_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_, and _Equus_] are
+     filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before
+     I can arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is
+     proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It
+     appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the
+     testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I
+     must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not
+     be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate
+     transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every
+     part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the
+     stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....
+     Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual
+     shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.
+
+(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant
+particular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's
+ancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them
+that all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly
+assists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent.
+But as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the
+remoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. _Hyracotherium_,
+for instance, was "about the size of a hare,"[288] and according to
+Professor Cope, _Orohippus_ was the exact counterpart of this diminutive
+steed. The hypothetical _Hippops_, which Professor Marsh locates in the
+lower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,[289] now "be
+predicated with certainty;" and amongst other things it "probably was
+not larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller." Sometimes, so far as
+evidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was
+deterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus
+_Epihippus_, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than
+_Protorohippus_, found in the Middle Eocene; "but," says the American
+pamphlet,[290] "no doubt there were others of larger size living at the
+same time," which will scarcely be called convincing.
+
+[Illustration: "THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.
+
+"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'S _LECTURES ON EVOLUTION_.]
+
+(vi.) Worthy of notice also is "the remarkable circumstance that in the
+line of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of
+generically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries
+of both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that
+on both continents a parallel development of the same genera has
+simultaneously taken place."[291] And, as we have seen, while the
+American pedigree must have been entirely different from the European,
+it terminates equally in both continents with the genus _Equus_, if not
+actually with _Equus caballus_.[292] But, on any mechanical system of
+evolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along
+separate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.[293] Mr.
+Darwin did not conceive it possible that the same species should be
+produced twice over, "if even the very same conditions of life, organic
+and inorganic should recur,"[294] and the production of genuine horses,
+not only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different
+ancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr.
+Mivart,[295] "it follows from this generic identity, that classification
+will be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard,
+not the origin but the _outcome_ of development, whether of the
+individual or the species."
+
+(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of
+the above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound
+and substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last
+ungulate is lineally descended from the first,--_Equus_ from _Eohippus_,
+_Hyracotherium_, _Phenacodus_, or _Hippops_,--but that this first
+ungulate himself--whichever it was--has been, or at least may have been,
+similarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common
+parent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all
+these from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the
+infinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a
+period of time inconceivably long--immensely longer than that required
+to change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a
+highly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the
+nails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution
+would be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all
+Mammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while
+this development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian
+life, as raw material for its operations--and of this at least _some_
+trace should remain.
+
+But, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon
+earth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could
+possibly have sprung. _Phenacodus_, is in fact described as,[296] "The
+most primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered." He appears in the Lower
+Tertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,--the whole
+period covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of
+Tertiary mammals generally,--are practically devoid of mammalian remains
+altogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no
+more suppose _Phenacodus_ and the huge and various beasts who were his
+Eocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of
+shrew-mice.
+
+It also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental
+mammals first show themselves all over the world at the beginning of
+the Eocene,--while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems
+to have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of
+extreme diversities of structure:--as for instance Unguiculates (or
+clawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing
+animals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the
+Cetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:[297]
+
+     The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than
+     any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by
+     two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The
+     great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (_Zeuglodon_) which have
+     these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are
+     undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.
+     This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the
+     theory of Evolution.... "We may question," says Gaudry,[298] "these
+     strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their
+     progenitors--they leave us without reply." ... Their silence is the
+     more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have
+     been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages
+     of their development.
+
+The Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from
+the generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in
+quite another direction. But they appear with their wings fully
+developed, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.
+
+     Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson][299] that it is "natural to
+     suppose" that there must have been species existing previously with
+     shorter fingers[300] and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts
+     to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since
+     the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps
+     harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the
+     present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to
+     develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a
+     bat?
+
+Such instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties
+confined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when
+Anchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might
+claim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but
+Perissodactyles, or "odd-toed," like himself. These were the
+"Proboscideae"--"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a
+hand," in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other
+families, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of
+their race, for some of their Miocene specimens[301] are about half as
+large again as the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray
+Lankester has recently declared[302] that we now understand the genetic
+affinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into
+trunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement
+he adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain
+recently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called
+final which are based upon such partial evidence?[303] As M. Gaudry,
+convinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very
+matter:[304]
+
+     Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did
+     they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do
+     not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as
+     a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great
+     to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans
+     and animals of other orders as yet known to us.
+
+Such then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the
+genesis of the Horse, "the most famous instance of geological
+evidence"[305] which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to
+demonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be
+supposed to merit any such description. In view of the various
+difficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is
+satisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone
+are such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the _Equidæ_.
+Even were the reality of this established to the full, how would such
+evidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of
+Organic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its
+history?[306]
+
+We find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares palæontology to be
+the main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact
+contrary.
+
+     The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson][307] is
+     essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much
+     more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them
+     more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants
+     revealed by the rocks of the earth.
+
+Similarly Professor Williamson,[308] speaking of the efforts made to
+obtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: "Not only living, but
+extinct animals have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has,
+with his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the
+geological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one."
+
+More important than all,--Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the
+palæontological evidence is far short of what it should be:--and
+attempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the
+geological record:--a plea to be more fully considered presently.
+
+We must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological
+record adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a
+slight specimen,--- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the
+apetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom
+of the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious
+Evolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a
+perfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days,
+in which "we may suppose" all the forms of after vegetation to have
+begun their career as seaweeds.[309]
+
+But in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he
+goes much further, and prints[310] an elaborate genealogy upon which
+Professor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he
+exhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an "Ancestral Series of
+the human pedigree," which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers will
+naturally suppose to be based upon palæontological evidence. This
+wonderful genealogy stands thus:
+
+1. _Monera._ 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval
+animals. 4. Ciliated planulæ (_Planæada_). 5. Primeval Intestinal
+animals (_Gastræada_). 6. Gliding Worms (_Turbellaria_). 7. Soft-worms
+(_Scolecida_). 8. Sack worms (_Himatega_). 9. _Acrania._ 10.
+_Monorrhina._ 11. Primeval fish (_Selachii_). 12. Salamander fish
+(_Dipneusta_). 13. Gilled Amphibia (_Sozobranchia_). 14. Tailed Amphibia
+(_Sozura_). 15. Primeval Amniota (_Protamnia_). 16. Primary Mammals
+(_Promammalia_). 17. _Marsupialia._ 18. Semi-apes (_Prosimiæ_). 19.
+Tailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like
+Apes). 21. _Pithecanthropus_ (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking
+Man.
+
+     The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages][311] is that not
+     one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,
+     either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon
+     theory.[312] All species, existing or extinct, are said to have
+     been preceded by ancestral forms, which have disappeared leaving
+     no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill
+     represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up
+     the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is
+     sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types
+     themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them
+     [for example No. 7, The _Scolecida_, and No. 21,
+     _Pithecanthropus_].
+
+This kind of "Science" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will
+be sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:[313]
+
+     If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree
+     telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the
+     missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters
+     which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that
+     have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does
+     continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his
+     genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another
+     would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures
+     actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he
+     unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in
+     phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the
+     discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more
+     than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely
+     hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a
+     trace of it, or ever will.
+
+It is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the
+Riddles of the Universe.
+
+As Vogt himself wrote,[314] "We shall be compelled to patch and alter
+these genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set
+forth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism."
+
+And Du Bois-Reymond,[315] "Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is
+worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical
+historians."
+
+There remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted
+deficiency of palæontological evidence.
+
+     The main cause [he writes][316] of innumerable intermediate links
+     [between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout
+     nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through
+     which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant
+     their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of
+     extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of
+     intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly
+     enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
+     stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
+     reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,
+     is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
+     against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
+     extreme imperfection of the geological record.
+
+How imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has
+no difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been
+defaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to
+our inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is
+continually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not
+appear that it need detain us long.
+
+It is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot
+prove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof
+of that theory which is required. Apart from palæontological facts, as
+Professor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one
+way or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently
+complete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be
+scientifically established.
+
+Is it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that
+precisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which
+the Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which
+appears to contradict it?
+
+But, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record
+undoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what
+exists,--there still remains a vast mass of information which it has
+actually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as
+to the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If,
+as on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were
+in each line of descent no successive species or genera, made up of
+forms clustered round one point in the course of development more than
+another, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such
+isolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no
+single instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking
+them together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points
+in Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and
+apparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?
+
+It is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite
+inconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly
+unmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is
+sufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the
+Horse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for
+his Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed _Equus_
+did not exist during the earlier periods when _Eohippus_,
+_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_ and the rest of them were preparing the way
+for his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with
+others more ancient still which are set down as _their_ ancestors. But
+on what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains
+of the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less
+developed. If such a reason be sufficient--which we will not
+question--it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of
+intermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in the supposed
+pedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms
+there never were.
+
+It is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell
+the wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the
+right one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing
+us to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring
+lines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart
+tells us,[317] "It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared
+at first to indicate a _gradual transition_, which instances have been
+shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly
+anything of the kind." Another example of the same sort is furnished by
+the recent discovery of _Arsinoetherium_, a genus of very large and
+heavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered
+in the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large
+rhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we
+are told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and
+two smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite
+apart _from all other mammals_.
+
+It thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the
+bar of Palæontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend
+is, Not proven.
+
+One thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic
+Evolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the
+development of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been
+found by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we
+know.
+
+As the Count de Saporta writes:[318]
+
+     Although the problem of "creation,"--formerly thought so simple,
+     and dated almost within human ken and the period of human
+     history--has now been relegated to a period too distant to be
+     imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the
+     problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been
+     shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been
+     altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more
+     and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to
+     investigate remains precisely the same.
+
+So too M. Blanchard:[319]
+
+     There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the
+     apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it
+     would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.
+     If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang
+     from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,
+     the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of
+     the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less
+     marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.
+
+And, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell,
+when he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory,
+wrote to him,[320]--"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much
+required as ever."
+
+
+
+
+XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+
+It is time to return to the point from which we started our whole
+enquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a
+solution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which
+we dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever,
+we saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no
+less than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning,
+and there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,--a cause
+capable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced.
+The material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,--organic life
+with all its infinite marvels and varieties--animal sensation--human
+intelligence--canons of beauty, the law of good and evil--all these must
+have existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence
+alone they could be derived.
+
+The Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we
+set ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science
+has found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe itself as
+they come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces
+which she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In
+particular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various
+significations, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine,
+from the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be
+said that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.
+
+The result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has
+immensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be
+accounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account
+for them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of
+Nature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than
+they were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of
+motion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational
+intelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order
+to which all Nature testifies,--all these are for Science utterly
+unsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must
+remain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be
+that any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the
+sublime and beautiful,--and above all--of the distinction between right
+and wrong.
+
+Here, then, Science stops,--confessing that she can be our guide no
+farther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions
+which are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name. Her domain
+is the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within
+that realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our
+intellectual need for causality.
+
+Are we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First
+Cause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the
+Agnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must
+not pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When
+Science fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,--thus only
+can our position still be scientific.
+
+But is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and
+monstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our
+senses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less
+certain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the
+monument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it
+contains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one
+adequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as
+the proverb says, "Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in
+it." From such conclusions there is no escape;--and since it is
+impossible to find the cause required within the world of material
+forces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must
+lie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Therefore, also, we know something concerning that Cause,--very little,
+perhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,--but still something
+very substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must
+possess every excellence which we discover in Nature,--all that she has,
+and more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of
+itself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is
+no power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in
+Nature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be
+supereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise
+of its might,--or it would be inferior to its own works.
+
+     Since there must have been something from eternity, [says
+     Bolingbroke][321] because there is something now, the eternal Being
+     must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;
+     for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce
+     entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must
+     exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or
+     whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to
+     conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a
+     cause.
+
+It is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion
+of the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they
+assume "as absolutely self-evident" the existence of a Deity who is the
+Creator and Upholder of all things.
+
+It will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which
+formidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the
+whole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did
+not Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own
+image and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be
+more conclusive than that?
+
+But what--after all--does "Anthropomorphism" mean in this connexion?
+Simply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is
+superhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are
+by the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression
+except such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can
+convince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some
+extent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no
+description of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination,
+except so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external
+world. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial
+being, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the
+object they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give
+it one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise
+they could not portray it at all. But however such images may be
+refined and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as
+conventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as
+different from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on
+the score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music
+is a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are
+heads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the
+Theistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into
+words we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and
+to borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the
+highest and noblest element found in the Universe,--namely our own
+intelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally
+possessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is
+sound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible
+excellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only
+when it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of
+an inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained
+in a pound,--but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper.
+According to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of
+energy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from
+observation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and
+light; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and
+obvious enough, often as it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver
+Lodge has lately put the matter:[322]
+
+     Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no
+     worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many
+     errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy
+     attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its
+     existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no
+     more.
+
+Or as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:[323]
+
+     That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself
+     thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or
+     express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained
+     be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than
+     the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the
+     more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason
+     disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of
+     the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as
+     existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,
+     independently of the mind of the investigator.
+
+The reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the
+force of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a
+fundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce
+the element of purpose in Nature is to deny the continuity of Natural
+law, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure,
+is equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that
+particular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may
+be supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of "the commoner
+and coarser forms of teleology," giving as an instance the supposition
+that eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors
+to see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less
+difficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any
+purpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;--but evidently it
+is taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature
+to be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or
+peacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has
+been said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it
+is through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes
+came to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there
+is of admitting the Creator into Creation. "It is still assumed on both
+sides," he wrote,[324] "that there must be something inexplicable or
+miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,"--and
+although we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of
+Theists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections
+on this head can only signify that it is with the laws of Nature as
+with a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and
+set it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as
+a legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge
+who administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete
+cases,--so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted,
+provides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He
+has instituted.
+
+So it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must
+conceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of
+all things, while Lord Kelvin declares[325] we are unmistakably shown
+through Nature that she depends upon one "ever-acting Creator and
+Ruler." It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds
+the modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs,
+indeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence
+by identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter
+qualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific
+experience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point
+as against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be "the most
+illogical form of metaphysics," and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, "not so
+much error as sheer nonsense." Theism avoids the error of either
+extreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction
+between the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His
+creatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and
+that in their every operation He is manifested.
+
+And so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world,
+and the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a
+Self-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a
+basis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need
+of causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as
+necessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only
+indirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.
+
+By no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck,
+the real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore
+represent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with
+them we may conclude.[326]
+
+     Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is
+     seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though
+     indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he
+     observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally
+     solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by
+     the consideration of His works....
+
+     Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of
+     things constituting a power subject to law, cannot therefore be
+     God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,
+     of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus
+     the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,
+     since these laws originate from Him.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX
+
+
+_A._ _Evolution and the lower forms of life_ (_p. 165_).
+
+A singularly instructive field for the study of the mutability or
+stability of species should be afforded by the lower forms of life, in
+which organization is reduced to a minimum, they being mere masses of
+protoplasm without even a containing envelope, while their nourishment
+is of the simplest. It would therefore appear that environment should be
+all-potent to modify them and produce specific modifications, while the
+extreme rapidity with which they propagate their kind, and that
+unisexually, ought to require no vast extent of time to make such
+transmutations apparent.
+
+It is found, however, on the contrary, that nowhere in organic nature
+does the type remain more rigidly persistent. Professor Macbride, for
+example, tells us,[327]
+
+"The Myxomycetæ may be regarded as the organic group in which the forces
+of heredity,--whatever these forces may be--are at their maximum: they
+have responded as little as possible to the influence of their
+environment."
+
+To the same effect speaks Professor Paulesco of Bucharest, of other
+elementary organisms.[328]
+
+What is still more remarkable, these same organisms are extremely
+sensitive to altered conditions of environment, which have a direct and
+immediate influence, gravely modifying their morphological and
+physiological characters, changes in respect of light, minute
+alterations of temperature, or the introduction of a new chemical
+substance, even in infinitesimal quantity, frequently causing them to
+assume forms very different from the specific type, and profoundly
+modifying their nutritive processes.
+
+Here, it was at first thought, when Pasteur revealed their history, is
+clear evidence of specific transformation. But he presently convinced
+himself and others that it is not so, for although liable to assume such
+polymorphic forms according to the conditions in which they find
+themselves, there is no alteration of specific nature, and if the
+original circumstances be restored, the original forms reappear--"une
+élasticité functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier à des
+conditions variées d'existence sans changer d'être." (Pasteur.)
+
+As M. Duclaux adds:[329]
+
+"La notion d'espèce ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilité est un
+caractère comme un autre, bien que plus difficile à inscrire dans la
+classification, et une espèce est aussi bien définie par les
+sensibilités diverses qu'elle manifeste que par la petite liste des mots
+et de propriétés dans laquelle on croyait pouvoir autrefois enfermer
+toute son histoire.... La lien de l'espèce c'est la loi qui préside à
+ces changements, et la variété des formes et des fonctions n'est pas du
+tout en contradiction avec l'unité de l'espèce."
+
+
+_B._ _Note on Chap. XV. p. 203._
+
+Since the foregoing pages have been in type there has come to hand the
+New York _Literary Digest_ of January 23, 1904, containing the following
+article (p. 119).
+
+"ARE THE DAYS OF DARWINISM NUMBERED?"
+
+The recent death of Herbert Spencer lends special timeliness to the
+above topic, which is being actively debated just now in German
+theological circles. The immediate cause of the revival of interest in
+the present status of the Darwinian theory is found in a lengthy article
+by the veteran philosopher, Edward von Hartmann, which appears in
+Oswald's _Annalen der Naturphilosophie_ (vol. ii. 1903), under the title
+'Der Niedergang der Darwinismus' ('The Passing of Darwinism'). That the
+famous 'philosopher of the unconscious' is not prejudiced in favour of
+biblical views has been more than clear since the publication of his
+_Selbstzersetzung der Christentums_ ('Disintegration of Christianity')
+in 1874. Hartmann in his new article has this to say--
+
+'In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of
+savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies,
+the new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In
+the eighties, Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an
+almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for
+the first time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were
+heard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming
+at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the
+twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are
+numbered. Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, Gustav
+Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann, Reinke, and many
+others.'
+
+These facts, according to Hartmann's view, while they do not indicate
+that the Darwinian theory is doomed, undermine its most radical
+features:
+
+'The theory of descent is safe, but Darwinism has been weighed and found
+wanting. Selection can in general not achieve any positive results, but
+only negative effects; the origin of species by minimal changes is
+possible, but has not been demonstrated. The pretensions of Darwinism as
+a pure mechanical explanation of results that show purpose are totally
+groundless.'
+
+Other scholars think that Hartmann does not do full justice to the
+reaction that has set in, particularly in Germany, against Darwinism.
+This sentiment is voiced by Professor Zoeckler, of the University of
+Greifswald, in the _Beweis des Glaubens_ (No. xi.), a journal which
+recently published a collection of anti-Darwinian views from German
+naturalists. He calls the article of Hartmann 'the tombstone-inscription
+[_Grabschrift_] for Darwinism,' and goes on to say:
+
+     'The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically
+     must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartmann's exposition nor
+     the authorities he cites have the force of moral conviction for the
+     claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is
+     not a scientifically demonstrated proposition, although descent in
+     an ideal sense can be made to harmonize with the biblical account
+     of creation.'
+
+Views of a similar kind are voiced in many quarters. The Hamburg savant,
+Edward Hoppe, has written a brochure, _Ist mit der Descendenz-Theorie
+eine religiöse Vorstellung vereinbar?_ [Is the Theory of Evolution
+reconcilable with the Religious Idea?] in which he takes issue, in the
+name of religion, with the purely naturalistic type of Darwinian
+thought. The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwinian views is
+Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, who has not only discarded the
+mechanical conception of the origin of being, but the whole Darwinian
+theory. He recently delivered a course of lectures, entitled 'Die
+Darwin'sche Theorie,' which have appeared in book form in Leipsic. He
+comes to this conclusion: 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a
+single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result
+of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.'
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From another article in the same journal (p. 116), entitled 'A Study of
+Creation,' the following paragraphs may be cited:
+
+     "The French have never been enthusiastic Darwinians. It is,
+     perhaps, not surprising, therefore, to find a French geologist, M.
+     Stanislas Meunier, arguing in the _Revue Scientifique_ (December
+     19) against all schools of transformism and stoutly maintaining
+     what is practically a doctrine of special creation. He admits that
+     living beings form a connected series; but the connexion, he
+     believes, is not one of physical descent, but inheres in something
+     outside of and pre-existent to the earth. He does not name it, but
+     he would probably not object to the inference that it is the mind
+     of a creator.
+
+     "M. Meunier gives at some length his reasons for rejecting
+     Darwin's, Lamarck's, and all other theories of transformism. All we
+     can be sure of, he thinks, is that, as in the case of the various
+     kinds of pottery, we have to do with an orderly development,
+     although he thinks it is not a development by descent. He closes,
+     thus:
+
+     "'Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis on the mechanism
+     of the production of living things; but it is, perhaps, a step in
+     advance only to come to the conclusion that the cause of life and
+     its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth; that it
+     is anterior to our world, just as are doubtless the laws of physics
+     and chemistry, which govern the relations of matter and force
+     throughout space.
+
+     "'The philosophy of science can lose nothing by the admission of
+     points of view that, far from narrowing our subjects of study,
+     enlarge them beyond all limits; and this is, perhaps, the occasion
+     to show once more to persons who are turning toward metaphysics in
+     their thirst for mystery, that they will find in pure science that
+     wherewith they may satisfy their legitimate aspirations.'"
+
+
+_C._ _Succession of Plant forms p. 220._
+
+Recent investigations have led to the remarkable discovery that many
+fern-like plants of the Carboniferous rocks, hitherto classed as
+Cryptogams, were in reality seed-bearers, and thus intermediate between
+Cryptogams and Cycads, the most primitive of existing seed-plants. They
+have accordingly been placed in a special group "Cycadofilices," or
+"Fern-Cycads," and regarded as transitional types, the view that they
+are the remains of a natural bridge connecting the Ferns with the
+Gymnosperms having received wide support,[330] and at first sight this
+conclusion would appear natural and obvious. But here, as in other
+cases, the difficulty is that the seeds which have been found are all
+fully developed; there are none in the intermediate stages between true
+spores and true seeds; we have the finished article, but no trace of
+seeds in the making; which upon any theory of evolution must have been
+exceedingly numerous. Hence Dr. Scott tells us:[331]
+
+"The important discoveries of the seeds of the Pteridosperms scarcely
+touch the question of descent, for these organs are of too advanced a
+type to throw light on the probable derivation of the group."
+
+In this instance, therefore, as in others, it remains true that in no
+case is any trace found of rudimentary character in the earliest fossil
+specimens of any class.
+
+It is undoubtedly a further puzzle that some of the Carboniferous
+cryptogams which did not bear real seeds, yet simulated them, a habit
+not easily explained on evolutionary principles.
+
+
+_D._ _The Course of Evolution._
+
+The evidence of Professor Vines quoted in the text (pp. 202, 237)
+receives a remarkable confirmation from that of Dr. Smith Woodward,
+Keeper of Geology in the National Museum of Natural History. Speaking
+before the International Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis,
+U.S.A., September 22nd, 1904, he thus touched upon the same question,
+which he illustrated especially from the history of fossil fishes, which
+he has made his special study.[332]
+
+     "It must be confessed that repeated discoveries have now left faint
+     hope that exact and gradual links will ever be forthcoming between
+     most of the families and genera. The 'imperfection of the record,'
+     of course, may still render some of the negative evidence
+     untrustworthy; but even approximate links would be much commoner in
+     collections than they actually are if the doctrine of gradual
+     evolution were correct. Palæontology, indeed, is clearly in favour
+     of the theory of discontinuous mutation, or advance by sudden
+     changes, which has lately received so much support from the
+     botanical experiments of H. de Vries.
+
+     "Further results obtained from the study of fossils have a bearing
+     even on the deepest problems of Biology, namely, those connected
+     with the nature of life itself. For instance, it is allowable to
+     infer, from the statements already made, that the main factor in
+     the evolution of organisms is some inherent impulse--the 'bathmic
+     force' of Cope--which acts with unerring certainty whatever be the
+     conditions of the moment."
+
+
+_E._ _Pedigree of the Horse._
+
+Some recent evidence on this subject certainly does not clear away the
+difficulties set forth in the text.
+
+From _Nature_, Sept. 8, 1904, p. 474.
+
+     "Professor Osborn (in a lecture before the British Association)
+     mentioned that more than a hundred more or less complete skeletons
+     of horses and horse-like animals had been found in North America.
+     He thought he had established the fact that horses were
+     polyphyletic, there being four or five contemporary series in the
+     Miocene, but that the direct origin of the genus _Equus_ in North
+     America was not established with certainty."
+
+Professor Sedgwick, _Student's Text Book of Zoology_, p. 599.
+
+     "Much has been written on the ancestry of the horse. It has been
+     maintained by many authors that a continuous series of forms
+     connecting it with the four-toed, brachyodont Hyracothoridæ of the
+     Eocene has been discovered, and that here if anywhere a
+     demonstrative historical proof has been obtained of the doctrine of
+     organic evolution. Without desiring in the smallest degree to
+     impugn that doctrine, it may be permitted us here to examine rather
+     closely the view that the series of forms which recent
+     palæontological research has undoubtedly brought to light
+     constitute that historical proof which has been claimed for them."
+
+[After an examination of the structural characters of these intermediate
+forms, viz., _Pliohippus_, _Protohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Miohippus_,
+_Mesohippus_, _Orohippus_, and _Hyracotherium_, the author proceeds]:
+
+     "So far as the characters mentioned are concerned, we have here a
+     very remarkable series of forms which at first sight seem to
+     constitute a linear series with no cross-connections. Whether,
+     however, they really do this is a difficult point to decide. There
+     are flaws in the chain of evidence, which require careful and
+     detailed consideration. For instance, the genus _Equus_ appears in
+     the Upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene
+     age. It has, however, been maintained that these beds are in
+     reality Lower Pliocene, or even Upper Pliocene. It is clear that
+     the decision of this question is of the utmost importance. If
+     _Equus_ really existed in the Upper Miocene, it was antecedent to
+     some of its supposed ancestors. Again in the series of equine
+     forms, _Mesohippus_, _Miohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Protohippus_,
+     which are generally regarded as coming into the direct line of
+     equine descent, Scott[333] points out that each genus is, in some
+     respect or other, less modified than its predecessor. In other
+     words, it would appear that in this succession of North American
+     forms the earlier genera show, in some points, closer resemblance
+     to the modern _Equus_ than to their immediate successors. It is
+     possible that these difficulties and others of the same kind will
+     be overcome with the growth of knowledge, but it is necessary to
+     take note of them, for in the search after truth nothing is gained
+     by ignoring such apparent discrepancies between theory and fact."
+
+Besides the structure of limbs and teeth, another argument for the
+descent of the horse has been drawn from certain phenomena of
+colouration. Stripings are found not unfrequently to occur in the legs
+and withers, which Darwin took for a reversion to the character of a
+very remote ancestor, the common parent, in fact, of horses and asses,
+which he supposed to have been striped all over like a zebra. Like other
+such common ancestors, this hypothetical animal had never been seen, but
+was thought to be most nearly represented by the Kathiwar horse, with
+stripes on a dun ground, a specimen of which is exhibited as
+illustrating the hypothesis in the National Museum of Zoology.
+
+Recently, however, Professor Ridgeway, who has devoted special attention
+to the problem, has satisfied himself that there is no sufficient
+foundation for these suppositions. He thus sums up the evidence which he
+has been able to collect:[334]
+
+     "Darwin's view that the original ancestor of the Equidæ was a
+     dun-coloured animal, striped all over, was based, not merely on the
+     occurrence of stripes in horses, but on his belief that such
+     stripes were common in dun horses, and that there was a tendency in
+     horses to revert to dun colour. But it must be confessed that the
+     facts do not warrant his conclusion.... It is clear that stripes
+     are at least as often a concomitant of dark as of dun colour.
+     Moreover, if Darwin's hypothesis of a dun-coloured ancestor with
+     stripes is sound, dark colours such as bay and brown must be of
+     more recent origin, and accordingly there ought to be a great
+     readiness on the part of a progeny of a light-coloured animal when
+     mated with a dark to revert to the light. But Professor Ewart's
+     zebra stallion has never been able to stamp his own peculiar
+     pattern or his own colours on his hybrid offspring. The ground
+     colour has been determined by the dams of the hybrids."
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+_Abiogenesis_, 49-51
+
+_Ætiology_, 197
+
+Agnosticism, Huxley's first principle of, 4
+  Its fundamental principle unreasonable, 272
+
+American Museum and the pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Amphibians, embryology, 195
+
+"Anthropomorphism," 274, 275
+
+_Archæopteryx_, 171
+
+_Archebiosis_, 53
+
+Argus pheasant, ornamentation, 175
+
+_Arsinoetherium_, 267
+
+Atlantic cable, an illustration from, of chance and purpose, 115
+
+Atoms, 37, 41, 88, 89, 90, 136
+
+Augustine, St.--on creation _causaliter et seminaliter_, 141, 207
+
+_Axolotl_, 195
+
+
+Baden-Powell, Prof.--on the nature of the First Cause, 276
+
+Bastian, Dr. H. C.--on spontaneous generation, 21, 50, 53
+
+_Bathybius Haeckelii_, 21
+
+Batrachians, appearance of, 225
+
+Bats, an evolutionary puzzle, 229, 257
+
+Bee, cell-making instinct, 156, 179
+
+Bickerton, Prof.,--on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+_Biogenesis_, 49, 50
+
+Blanchard, M.--on variation, 164;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 181;
+  on fecundity as a factor in survival, 188;
+  on the problem of creation, 268
+
+Bolingbroke, Viscount,--on the nature of the first cause, 273
+
+Bridgman, Laura, 77
+
+Bunsen, Chevalier,--on animal sounds and language, 74
+
+Butler, Bishop,--on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, 100
+
+
+Carruthers, Mr. W.--on specific stability of _Salix polaris_, 164;
+  on classification of plants, 214;
+  on the geological record, 216, 265;
+  on past history of plant-life, 216 _seq._; on
+  an assertion of Haeckel's, 221;
+  on the evidence supplied by fossil plants, 223
+
+Case,  Prof.--on the meaning of "fortuitous," 125
+
+Causation, principle of, 2, 87, 94, 107
+
+Cause, the First. See _First Cause_
+
+Chance, 110 _seq._, 151, 174
+
+Cicero--on the evidence for a Deity, 103
+
+Clerk-Maxwell, Prof.--on force and energy, 23n;
+  on Molecules, 90, 104;
+  on evidence of design, _ibid._
+
+Clifford, Prof. W. K.--on design in Nature, 101
+
+Clodd, Mr. E.--on atoms, 41
+
+Comte, Auguste--on materialism, 278
+
+Consciousness, origin of, 67
+
+_Cosmos_ and its Cause, 86 _seq._
+
+Croll, Mr.--on force and its determination, 94-96
+
+Crookes, Sir W.--on renovation of energy, 26;
+  on radium and radio-activity, 42, 43
+
+Cryptogamous plants, fossil history, 219
+
+Crystallization, 63, 64
+
+
+Darwin, Mr.--on the "law of continuity," 57;
+  on spontaneous generation, 58;
+  on the mental gulf between man and brute, 71;
+  on the origin of language, 79, 178;
+  on "creation," 91;
+  on the structure of the eye, 91;
+  on chance as a factor of the world, 116;
+  on pain and suffering as an objection to design, 119;
+  disclaims achievements attributed to him, 150;
+  his system, 153 _seq._ (see _Darwinism_);
+  his mode of arguing, 178;
+  dogmatism, 179;
+  pleads lack of knowledge as an argument, 182;
+  on single origin of every species, 210, 254;
+  on genealogy of the Horse, 259;
+  on the imperfection of the geological record, 264
+
+Darwinism, 149 _seq._;
+  false representations of, 149-151;
+  sketch of system, 151-157;
+  facts favouring, 158-160;
+  difficulties of, 160 _seq._;
+  explains no origins, 161;
+  ignores the prime factor, _ibid._;
+  improbabilities, 166, 173;
+  does not explain initial developments, 170 _seq._;
+  nor artistic ornamentation, 175;
+  specious arguments too easily forthcoming, 177;
+  does not account for organic progression, 187;
+  scientific opinions concerning, 198 _seq._, 281
+
+Dawson, Sir J. W.--on the first origin of life, 208;
+  on the history of animal life, 223; on genealogy of the _Equidæ_, 247;
+  of the _Cetacea_, 257;
+  of bats,
+  258;
+  on lack of palæontological evidence for evolution, 260
+
+Design, evidence of, in Nature, 90, 97 _seq._;
+  Kant on the necessity of, 150
+
+Determination of force, its necessity, 94-96, 114
+
+Determinism of the will, 81 _seq._
+
+Development of organic types, 146
+
+Dicotyledons, appearance of, 220
+
+Diderot--on evidence of intelligence in Nature, 125
+
+_Dinotherium_, classification of, 259 n
+
+Dogs, their vocal expression of emotions, 73
+
+Du Bois-Reymond, Herr,--on the "Seven Enigmas," 31-33;
+  on the progress of human development, 68, 69;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+_Dysteleology_, 190
+
+
+Ear, structure of, 93
+
+_Electrons_, 42
+
+Elephant and Tortoise of Hindu astronomy, 107
+
+Embryology and Evolution, 158-160, 192 _seq._
+
+"Energy," 23; conservation of, _ibid._;
+  dissipation of, 24 _seq._;
+  renovation of, 26-28
+
+"Enigmas, the Seven," 32
+
+_Entropy_, 25
+
+_Equidæ_. See _Horse_
+
+Ether, a constituent of the universe, 36
+
+Evil, Origin of, the darkest of mysteries, 120
+
+"Evolution," different meanings of term, 8;
+    as an operative law, 10-14;
+    eternal, 11;
+    as a philosophy, 22 _seq._;
+    formula of, 145
+  As a process, 45 _seq._
+  Organic, 142 _seq._;
+    essential characters of theory, 147, 206;
+    nature of evidence required, 208 _seq._;
+    history of in vegetable and animal kingdoms, 216 _seq._
+
+Eye, origin of, 91, 154
+  Helmholtz, on defects of, 91 n.;
+    structure of, 155 n.;
+    evolution of, 168
+
+
+Fabre, M.--on Darwin's facts, 200 n.;
+  on our ignorance of Nature, 203
+
+Faraday, Prof.--on gravitation, 125
+
+Final causality (Teleology), 98 _seq._
+
+First Cause, the object of inference, 96, 97;
+  nature of as shown by reason, 270 _seq._
+
+Fish, appearance of, 225;
+  problems presented by, 233
+
+Flight, problem of, 93
+
+Flower, Sir W.--on the extinct American horse, 254
+
+Force, nature of, 23
+
+Free-will, Prof. Haeckel on, 33, 81;
+  Dr. Johnson on, 84
+
+Fuegians, mental likeness to ourselves, 72
+
+
+Garnett, Prof.--on force, 23
+
+Gaudry, M.--on ancestry of whales, 257;
+ of bats, 258;
+ of proboscidians, 259
+
+Genera and species, 244 n.
+
+_Generatio aequivoca_, 65
+
+Generation, mysteries of, 123 _seq._
+
+Geological formations, succession of, 213
+
+Geological record, 216, 264, _seq._
+
+Giraffe, evolution of, 154
+
+Glass, fortuitously discovered, 115
+
+Goethe--on "iron law," 14
+
+Gore, Dr. G.--on machinery as excluding idea of design, 118
+
+"Grand Question," the, 96
+
+Grimthorpe, Lord (Sir E. Beckett)--on matter, 37; on the problem of flight, 93;
+  on evidences of purpose, 94;
+  on generation, 124;
+  on the structure of the eye, 155 n.
+
+Gymnosperms, appearance of, 219
+
+
+Haeckel, Prof. E.--on "rational view of the world," 10-14;
+  on the "magic word evolution," 16;
+  on scientific method, 18, 20;
+  on the law of substance, 13, 23;
+  on the conservation of energy, 23, 24, 26;
+  on the "Seven Enigmas," 33;
+  on the nature and properties of matter, 35, 39;
+  on the artificial manufacture of protoplasm, 59;
+  on free-will and determinism, 81;
+  on design in Nature, 90, 150;
+  on chance, 117;
+  on Monism, 128;
+  on annihilation as a desirable end, 130;
+  on the ultimate reality, 135;
+  unfounded claims on behalf of Darwin, 150;
+  bases arguments on lack of knowledge, 183;
+  on rudimentary organs and "Dysteleology," 190;
+  on single origin of every species, 210;
+  on the appearance of the _Apetalæ_, 221;
+  invents geological "ante-periods," 236;
+  and intermediate forms, 261;
+  his pedigree of man, 261;
+  his method of solving the riddles of Nature, 264
+
+Heredity, 83, 99
+
+Herschel, Sir J.--on molecules as manufactured articles, 89;
+  on evidence of mind in Nature, 100;
+  on gravitation, 125
+
+_Hesperornis_, 171
+
+Heurtin, Marie, 77
+
+_Hippops_, 246, 252
+
+Hird, Mr. D.--on the omnipotence of Evolution, 14;
+  on transformations of force, 129
+
+Holland, Sir H.--on structure of ear, 93
+
+Homer, a "half-savage Greek," 69 n.
+
+_Homo alalus_, and _sapiens_, 81
+
+Horse, structure of, 94, 240
+  Genealogy of, 236, 241 _seq._
+
+Hudson, Dr.--on neglect of
+  study of present life in favour of evolutionary speculations, 185
+
+Humboldt, W. von--on human speech, 76
+
+Hutton, F. W.--on finite duration of the world, 2;
+  and of the universe, 28;
+  on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+Huxley, Prof.--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on the nature of science, 5;
+  on "Laws of Nature," 16-18;
+  on Evolution as a philosophy, 21, 22;
+  on matter, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on faith and verification, 47;
+  on the fundamental principle of Evolution, 48;
+  on spontaneous generation, 50-54;
+  on protoplasm, 59, 60;
+  on structure of the Horse, 93;
+  on theism and creation, 100;
+  on teleology, 102;
+  on theism and chance, 103;
+  on the non-existence of chance, 111;
+  on seeming waste in nature, 121;
+  on mind and matter, 133;
+  on Saurian birds, 172;
+  on _Dysteleology_, 191;
+  on embryology and ætiology, 197;
+  on the Darwinian theory, 200, 201;
+  on facts as the only sound basis of theory, 204;
+  on the fundamental doctrine of organic evolution, 206;
+  on evolutionary evidence, 235;
+  on Haeckel's "Ante-periods," 236;
+  claims palæontological evidence as demonstrative of Evolution, 239, 261;
+  his pedigree of the Horse, 236, 242 _seq._;
+  discussed, 244 _seq._
+
+_Hydra_, structure of, 146
+
+
+_Icthyornis_, 171
+
+_Inertia_, a property of matter, 39
+
+Inference, 5 n.; 96, 272
+
+Insects, insular, as an argument for Natural Selection, 154, 167
+
+Invertebrate life, history of, 225
+
+
+Johnson, Dr.--on free-will, 84
+
+Julius Cæsar, his polydactyle charger, 241
+
+
+Kant--on necessity of design, 150
+
+Keller, Miss 77
+
+Kelvin, Lord (Sir W. Thomson),--on the dissipation of energy, 25, 26;
+  his Law of Parsimony, 98;
+  on science and theism, 104, 278
+
+
+Laing, Mr. S.--on matter and motion, 35
+
+Lamarck--on Nature's witness to God, 279
+
+Language, our "Rubicon," 73;
+  distinctively human, 73-78;
+  essential character, 74;
+  theories as to origin, 79
+
+Lankester, Prof. Ray--on evolution of _Proboscideae_, 259
+
+Laws of Nature--what? 16,
+  17, 86;
+  expressions of creative intelligence, 123, 277
+
+Lewes, Mr.--on Laws of Nature, 86
+
+Liddon, Canon--on Laws of Nature, 16
+
+Life had a beginning, 46;
+  origin of, 46-66;
+  laws of, 90
+
+Link forms wanting in Nature, 208 _seq._, 228 _seq._
+
+Lodge, Sir O.--on non-purposive Evolution, 202;
+  on anthropomorphism and the First Cause, 276
+
+Lydekker, Mr. R.--on pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Lyell, Sir C.--on the need of creation, 269
+
+
+Mallock, Mr. W.--on human conduct, 139
+
+Mammals, appearance of, 226;
+  problems suggested by, 255
+
+Man, faculties, 71 _seq._;
+  appearance of, 227
+
+Marsh, Prof.--on Evolution, 47;
+  on _Hippops_, 252
+
+Marshall, Prof. Milnes--on the teachings of Evolution, 15;
+  on embryology, 159;
+  on Haeckel's treatment of the same, 195
+
+Marsupials, first appearance, 226
+
+_Materia Prima_, 42 n
+
+Matter, 35;
+  indestructibility, 13, 23;
+  properties, 36 _seq._;
+  constitution, 37, 41 _seq._, 135;
+  and motion, 39;
+  dissolution of, 43;
+  and mind, 131 _seq._
+
+Max Müller, Prof.--on language, 73, 75
+
+Mendeléeff's Periodic Law, 88
+
+Mind and matter, connexion of, 131 _seq._
+
+Mivart, Mr. St. G.--on the gulf between man and brute, 72;
+  on the essence of language, 74;
+  on theories as to its origin, 79;
+  on the ease with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on embryology of Salamander, 193;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with theory of Evolution by minute and gradual modification, 228, 230;
+  on evolution of the Horse, 255;
+  on the failure of apparent links, 267
+
+Mole, evolution of, 181
+
+Molecules, 88;
+  "manufactured articles," 89;
+  Clerk-Maxwell on, 90, 104
+
+Monism, 126 _seq._, 278;
+  and morality, 137;
+  and Truth, 138
+
+Monocotyledons, appearance of, 219
+
+Motion, as a property of matter, 39
+
+_Myriadism_, a better term for _Monism_, 136
+
+
+"Natural Selection," what it is, 152 _seq._;
+  its powers discussed, 165 _seq._;
+  can produce nothing, 168;
+  a misnomer, 174. See _Darwinism_.
+
+"Nature," 6
+
+Nebular hypothesis, 11, 45, 48
+
+Newman, Cardinal--on the nature of laws, 17;
+  on law and causality, 99
+
+Newton, Sir I., his laws of motion, 39;
+  on evidence for theism, 103
+
+_North British_ Reviewer--on the limits of variation, 162;
+  on the facility with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on Darwinism and geographical distribution, 184;
+  on the "maybe's" of Darwinism, _ibid._;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with evolutionary theory, 228
+
+
+Obrecht, Martha, 77
+
+_Ontogeny,_ 83 n.
+
+Organic progression--and Darwinism, 186;
+  not evidenced by palæontology, 234
+
+Organs, vestigial or rudimentary as an argument for evolution, 158, 189
+
+_Origin of Species_, appearance of, 151
+
+Owen, Sir R.--on the _Archæopteryx_, 172
+
+
+Pain and suffering, as an objection to Design, 119, 121
+
+Palæontology--the only sound basis for evolutionary theory, 204;
+  its evidence adverse to progressive developments, 234
+
+Paley--his "watch argument" disproved by machine-made watches, 118
+
+Pasteur, M.--on spontaneous generation, 50;
+  on initial temperature of life, 57 n.
+
+Peacock's feathers and Natural Selection, 155 n., 175
+
+Perrier, M. E.--on the evidence for Evolution, 237
+
+Pettigrew, Mr.--on wings of birds, 93
+
+_Phylogeny_, 83 n.
+
+_Prothyle_, 42
+
+Protoplasm, 59-63
+
+Purpose and natural laws, 122
+
+
+Quatrefages, M. de--on life and non-life, 63;
+  on crystallization, 64;
+  on variation in Nature, 162;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 180, 182, 183;
+  on embryology, 194;
+  on absence of intermediate forms in Nature, 212, 229
+
+Quinton, M.--new doctrine of life development, 57 n.
+
+
+_Rana opisthodon_--embryology, 195
+
+Rayleigh, Lord--on atheistic science, 105;
+  on scientific authority, 109
+
+Reason generates speech, not _vice versa_, 76
+
+Reptiles, age of, 226
+
+Reptilian birds, 171
+
+Rivarol--on God and the world, 279
+
+Robin, M. Ch.--on Darwinism, 198
+
+Romanes, Prof.--on continuity and universality of natural causation, 29, 30;
+  on origin of language, 79;
+  on Monism, 129;
+  on the inadequacy of Natural Selection, 201;
+  on jealousy of admitting the Creator into creation, 277
+
+Roscoe, Sir H.--on artificial production of protoplasm, 62
+
+
+Salamander, embryological features, 193
+
+_Salix polaris_, its specific stability, 164, 222
+
+Saporta, Comte de--on parallel development of animal and vegetable life, 228;
+  on the problem of Creation, 268
+
+Schoolmen, the--on relation of soul and body, 132
+
+Scorpion, maternal and unfilial instincts, 122
+
+Selous, Mr. E.--exemplifies Monistic doctrines, 139 n.
+
+Sensation and consciousness,--origin of, 67
+
+Snakes, embryological features, 194
+
+Species, on evolutionary principles must each derive from a single origin, 210;
+  isolation of, 211;
+  and genera, 244 n.
+
+Specific stability in Nature, 164
+
+Spencer, Mr. Herbert--on the beginning of life, 56;
+  his "Formula of Evolution," 145;
+  on the process of organic evolution, 147
+
+Spontaneous Generation. See _Life, origin of_
+
+Stephen, Sir L.--on materialism, 78
+
+Stewart, Prof. Balfour--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on dissipation of energy, 25.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_
+
+Stewart and Tait--on self-evidence of theism, 104, 273
+
+Stirling, Mr.--on protoplasm, 59, 61
+
+Stokes, Sir G. G.--on evidence for design, 104
+
+Suarez--on creative power and natural law, 207
+
+Substance, law of, 13, 14, 22, 23, 33, 41, 118
+
+Survival of the fittest, and organic progression, 186
+
+
+Tait, Prof. P.--On the scope of science, 18, 20;
+  on force and energy, 23 n.;
+  on the properties of matter, 39;
+  on "pseudoscience," 40;
+  on scientific methods, 47;
+  on mechanical theories of life, 65.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_.
+
+Teleology--98 _seq._
+
+Theism, 97 _seq._, 277
+
+Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W.--on protoplasm, 60-62
+
+_Thyroid_ gland--its lesson, 191 n.
+
+Time, as a factor in Evolution, 80, 169
+
+Transformism, 142, etc.
+  See _Evolution, organic_
+
+_Triton alpestris_, 195
+
+Tyndall, Prof.--on the material origin of life, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on scientific method, 47;
+  on spontaneous generation, 54-56;
+  on the potentialities of matter, 54;
+  on mind and matter, 133
+
+
+Ungulates, structure of limbs, 241
+
+
+Variation, the basis of Darwin's calculations, 162;
+  its limitations, _ibid._;
+  minute at each stage, 165
+
+_Verbum mentale_, 76
+
+Vines, Prof. S. H.--on speculations and facts, 185;
+  on the present status of the Darwinian theory, 202;
+  on our present knowledge, 237
+
+Virchow, Prof.--on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on spontaneous generation, 65
+
+Vogt, Carl--on embryology, 194;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+
+Wallace, Mr. A. R.--on breaches of natural causation, 64;
+  on the origin of life, _ibid._;
+  on the origin of animal life, 69, 70
+
+Weismann, Prof.--on our intellectual need for causality, 101
+
+Weldon, Prof.--on Huxley's scientific method, 21, 197
+
+Whales, appearance of, 257
+
+Whitney, Prof.--on origin of language, 79
+
+Will, the only cause known to us, 99, 100.
+  See also _Free-will_
+
+Williamson, Prof. W. C.--on missing links, 231;
+  on an unrecognized factor in life-developments, 232;
+  on the geological history of fishes, 233;
+  on genealogy of the _equidæ_, 251;
+  on lack of palæontological support for the Evolution theory, 260
+
+Wings, as machines, 93
+
+Wollaston, Mr.--on "Nature" as an agent, 108
+
+World, beginning of, 1
+
+
+_Zeuglodon_, 257
+
+
+
+
+A LIST OF WORKS
+
+MAINLY BY
+
+ROMAN CATHOLIC
+
+WRITERS
+
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+                                                   PAGE
+
+THE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY                               2
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH                                   3
+
+FOR THE CLERGY AND STUDENTS                           4
+
+BIOGRAPHY                                             6
+
+HISTORY                                               8
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHURCH                          8
+
+EDUCATIONAL                                           9
+
+STONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES                      10
+
+POETRY, FICTION, ETC.                                10
+
+NOVELS BY M. E. FRANCIS (MRS. FRANCIS BLUNDELL)      11
+
+WORKS BY THE VERY REV. CANON SHEEHAN, D.D.           11
+
+WORKS BY CARDINAL NEWMAN                             12
+
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
+
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
+
+91-93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
+
+8 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY
+
+303 BOWBAZAR STREET, CALCUTTA.
+
+1909
+
+The Westminster Library.
+
+A Series of Manuals for Catholic Priests and Students.
+
+Edited by the Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD, President of St. Edmund's
+College, and the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE TRADITION OF SCRIPTURE: its Origin, Authority and Interpretation. By
+the Very Rev. WILLIAM BARRY, D.D., Canon of St. Chads, Birmingham. Crown
+8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By the Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, Bishop of
+Newport. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS: An Introduction to Hagiography. From the
+French of Père H. DELEHAYE, S.J., Bollandist. Translated by Mrs. V. M.
+CRAWFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE PRIEST'S STUDIES. By the Very Rev. THOMAS SCANNELL, D.D., Canon of
+Southwark Cathedral, Editor of _The Catholic Dictionary_. Crown 8vo. 3s.
+6d. _net._
+
+The following Volumes are in Preparation:--
+
+THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR. By the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS. By the Rev. Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.
+
+THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. By the Right Rev. Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A.
+
+THE BREVIARY. By the Rev. EDWARD MYERS, M.A.
+
+THE INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. By the Rev. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
+
+THE MASS. By the Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Ph.D., D.D.
+
+
+The Catholic Church.
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WITHIN. With a Preface by His Eminence CARDINAL
+VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+LETTERS FROM THE BELOVED CITY. TO S. B. FROM PHILIP. By the Rev. KENELM
+DIGBY BEST. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+CONTENTS.--Why Philip writes these Letters to S. B.--S. B.'s
+Difficulties fully stated--The Good Shepherd--I come that they may have
+life--Feed my Lambs--Feed my Sheep--One Fold and One Shepherd--Christ's
+Mother and Christ's
+Church--Unity--Holiness--Catholicity--Apostolicity--Our Lady's
+Dowry--War--Pacification.
+
+LENT AND HOLY WEEK: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. By
+HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+BISHOP GORE AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. By Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 8vo.
+Paper covers, 6d. _net_; cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+ASPECTS OF ANGLICANISM; or, Some Comments on Certain Incidents in the
+'Nineties. By Mgr. JAMES MOYES, D.D., Canon of Westminster Cathedral.
+Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._ Paper Covers 2s. _net._
+
+*** _This book is a free comment from a Roman Catholic
+standpoint upon certain incidents in the religious life of Anglicanism
+in the 'Nineties. It deals incidentally with the Lambeth Judgment, and
+with the question of continuity. It represents the criticism which, from
+the point of view of history and theology, some of the later
+developments of Anglicanism would suggest to a Roman Catholic mind._
+
+DIVINE AUTHORITY. By J. F. SCHOLFIELD, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge,
+late Rector of St. Michael's, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+INFALLIBILITY: a Paper read before the Society of St. Thomas of
+Canterbury. By the Rev. VINCENT McNABB, O.P. Crown 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+_net._
+
+SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-DISCIPLINE. By the Rev. B. W. MATURIN. Crown
+8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+LAWS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+THE INNER LIFE OF THE SOUL. Short Spiritual Messages for the
+Ecclesiastical Year. By S. L. EMERY. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. _net._
+
+
+For the Clergy and Students.
+
+THE TRAINING OF A PRIEST: an Essay on Clerical Education. By the Rev.
+JOHN TALBOT SMITH, LL.D., President of the Catholic Summer School of
+America. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+SCHOLASTICISM, Old and New: an Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy,
+Mediæval and Modern. By M. de WULF, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy
+and Letters, Professor at the University of Louvain. Translated by P.
+COFFEY, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Maynooth College, Ireland. 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By SYLVESTER JOSEPH HUNTER, S.J. Crown
+8vo. Three vols., 6s. 6d. each.
+
+THE SERMON OF THE SEA, and Other Studies. By the Rev. ROBERT KANE, S.J.
+Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
+
+STUDIES ON THE GOSPELS. By VINCENT ROSE, O.P., Professor in the
+University of Fribourg. Authorised English Version, by ROBERT FRASER,
+D.D., Domestic Prelate to H.H. Pius X. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE. By AUSTIN O'MALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.,
+Pathologist and Ophthalmologist to Saint Agnes's Hospital, Philadelphia;
+and JAMES J. WALSH, Ph.D., LL.D., Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the
+New York Polytechnic School for Graduates in Medicine. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+*** _The term "Pastoral Medicine" may be said to represent that
+part of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those
+divisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his
+practice. This book is primarily intended for Roman Catholic
+confessors._
+
+THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. By Rev. MICHAEL CRONIN, M.A., D.D., Ex-Fellow,
+Royal University of Ireland; Professor, Clonliffe College, Dublin. 8vo.
+
+Vol. 1., General Ethics. 12s. 6d. net.
+
+THE KEY TO THE WORLD'S PROGRESS: an Essay on Historical Logic, being
+some Account of the Historical Significance of the Catholic Church. By
+CHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper covers, 6d.
+
+*** _The object of this book is to give to the logic and
+history of Newman an economic or sociological setting, and thus to show
+that "for the explanation of World-history we must first have the true
+theory of the Christian Church and her life through eighteen centuries".
+Part I. states briefly the problems which the philosophy of history
+seeks to resolve. Part II. presents the solution offered by Christianity
+and takes the form of an historical analysis of the principles by which
+the Church has been guided in her relations with the world._
+
+"IN THY COURTS" (La Vocation à la Vie Religieuse). Translated from the
+French of LOUIS VIGNAT, S.J. By MATTHEW L. FORTIER, S.J. 18mo. 1s. 6d.
+_net._ In paper covers, 1s. _net._
+
+CORDS OF ADAM: a Series of Devotional Essays with an Apologetic Aim. By
+the Rev. THOMAS J. GERRARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+"I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bonds of
+love."--_Osee_ xi. 4.
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER. An Enquiry how far Modern Science
+has altered the aspect of the Problem of the Universe. By JOHN GERARD,
+S.J., F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper Covers. 6d.
+
+THE MONTH; A Catholic Magazine. Conducted by FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF
+JESUS. Published Monthly. 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+
+INDEX TO THE MONTH, 1864-1908. Arranged under Subjects and Authors. 8vo.
+Cloth. 3s. 6d. _net._ Interleaved with Writing Paper. 5s. _net._
+
+
+Biography.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. DOMINIC, FOUNDER OF THE FRIAR PREACHERS. By AUGUSTA
+THEODOSIA DRANE. With 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER COMPANIONS. With a
+Translation of her Treatise on Consummate Perfection. By the same
+Author. With 10 Illustrations. Two vols. 8vo. 15s.
+
+A MEMOIR OF MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D. (AUGUSTA THEODOSIA DRANE),
+some time Prioress Provincial of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters
+of St. Catherine of Siena, Stone. With portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+LIFE OF ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, DUCHESS OF THURINGIA. By the COUNT DE
+MONTALEMBERT, Peer of France, Member of the French Academy. Translated
+by FRANCIS DEMING HOYT. Large Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. _net._
+
+HISTORY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, Founder of the Congregation of the
+Mission (Vincentians), and of the Sisters of Charity. By Monseigneur
+BOUGAUD, Bishop of Laval. Translated from the Second French Edition by
+the Rev. JOSEPH BRADY, C.M. With an Introduction by His Eminence
+CARDINAL VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+HENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES. By ALICE SHIELD. With an
+Introduction by ANDREW LANG. With Photogravure Frontispiece and 13 other
+Illustrations. 8vo. 12s. 6d. _net._
+
+EXPLORERS IN THE NEW WORLD BEFORE AND AFTER COLUMBUS, and THE STORY OF
+THE JESUIT MISSIONS OF PARAGUAY. By MARION McMURROUGH MULHALL, Member of
+The Roman Arcadia. With pre-Columban Maps. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CARDINAL WISEMAN. By WILFRID WARD. With 3
+Portraits. Two vols. Cr. 8vo. 10s. _net._
+
+AUBREY DE VERE: a Memoir based on his unpublished Diaries and
+Correspondence. By the same Author. With Two Photogravure Portraits and
+2 other Illustrations. 8vo. 14s. _net._
+
+TEN PERSONAL STUDIES. By the same Author. With 10 Portraits. 8vo. 10s.
+6d. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--Arthur James Balfour--Three Notable Editors: Delane, Hutton,
+Knowles--Some Characteristics of Henry Sidgwick--Robert, Earl of
+Lytton--Father Ignatius Ryder--Sir M. E. Grant Duff's Diaries--Leo
+XIII.--The Genius of Cardinal Wiseman--John Henry Newman--Newman and
+Manning--Appendix.
+
+SOME PAPERS OF LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, 12th BARON, COUNT OF THE HOLY
+ROMAN EMPIRE, Etc. With a Preface by the Dowager LADY ARUNDELL OF
+WARDOUR. With Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+HISTORICAL LETTERS AND MEMOIRS OF SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, 1625-1793. By the
+Rev. W. FORBES LEITH, S.J. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2
+vols. Medium 8vo. 24s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS. By FATHER IGNATIUS RYDER. Edited by the Rev. F. BACCHUS. 8vo.
+
+CONTENTS.--_Biographical and Historical._ 1. A Jesuit Reformer and
+Poet--2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)--3. Savonarola--4.
+M. Emery--5. The Great Schism. _General._--6. Auricular Confession--7.
+The Pope and the Anglican Archbishops--8. Ritualism, Romanism, etc.--9.
+Some Ecclesiastical Miracles--10. Irresponsible Opinion--11. The Ethics
+of War--12. The Passion of the Past--13. Reminiscences of a Jail
+Chaplain.
+
+
+History.
+
+HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN NORTH AMERICA: Colonial and Federal.
+By THOMAS HUGHES of the same Society. Royal 8vo.
+
+Text. Volume I. From the First Colonization, 1580, till 1645. With 3
+Maps and 3 Facsimiles. 15s. _net._
+
+Documents. Volume I. Part I. Nos. 1-140 (1605-1838). 21s. _net._
+Documents. Volume I. Part II. [_In the Press._
+
+THE INQUISITION: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power
+of the Church. By the Abbé E. VACANDARD. Translated from the French by
+the Rev. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, C.S.P. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BISHOP CHALLONER, 1691-1781. By EDWIN H. BURTON,
+D.D., F.R.Hist.S., Vice-President of St. Edmund's College. With 34
+Portraits and other Illustrations. In two volumes. 8vo.
+
+THE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN ENGLAND, 1781-1803. By BERNARD WARD,
+F.R.Hist.S., President of St. Edmund's College, Ware. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s.
+_net._
+
+
+The Beginnings of the Church.
+
+A Series of Histories of the First Century.
+
+By the Abbé CONSTANT FOUARD, Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the
+Faculty of Theology at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated by GEORGE F. X.
+GRIFFITH.
+
+THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. A Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
+With an Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. With 3 Maps. Two vols. Crown
+8vo. 14s.
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. 1s. _net._ Paper Covers. 6d. _net._
+
+ST. PETER AND THE FIRST YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. With 3 Maps. Crown 8vo.
+9s.
+
+ST. PAUL AND HIS MISSIONS. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+THE LAST YEARS OF ST. PAUL. With 5 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+ST. JOHN AND THE CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Educational.
+
+A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. By E. WYATT-DAVIES, M.A. With
+14 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OUTLINES OF BRITISH HISTORY. By the same Author. With 85 Illustrations
+and 13 Maps. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
+
+A HISTORY OF IRELAND FOR AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. From the Earliest
+Times to the Death of O'Connell. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. With specially
+constructed Map and 160 Illustrations, including Facsimile in Full
+Colours of an Illuminated Page of the Gospel Book of MacDurnan, A.D.
+850. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.
+
+_This is the authorised Irish History for Catholic Schools and Colleges
+throughout Australasia._
+
+HISTORICAL ATLAS OF INDIA, for the Use of High Schools, Colleges and
+Private Students. By CHARLES JOPPEN, S.J. 26 Maps in Colours. Post 4to.
+3s. net.
+
+DELECTA BIBLICA. Compiled from the Vulgate Edition of the Old Testament,
+and arranged for the use of Beginners in Latin. By a SISTER OF NOTRE
+DAME. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC. By G. H. JOYCE, S.J., M.A., Oxford, Professor of
+Logic at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+PARLEZ-VOUS FRANÇAIS? OU LE FRANÇAIS ENSEIGNÉ D'APRÈS LA MÉTHODE
+DIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustré par N. M. W. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+GRAMMAR LESSONS. By the PRINCIPAL OF ST. MARY'S HALL, Liverpool. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+THE CLASS TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION. By the same Author. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+QUICK AND DEAD? To Teachers. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+
+Stonyhurst Philosophical Series.
+
+Edited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.
+
+LOGIC. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+FIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+MORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown
+8vo. 5s.
+
+GENERAL METAPHYSICS. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+PSYCHOLOGY, EMPIRICAL AND RATIONAL. By MICHAEL MAHER, S.J., D.Litt.,
+M.A. Lond. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+NATURAL THEOLOGY. By BERNARD BOEDDER, M.A., S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+POLITICAL ECONOMY. By CHAS. S. DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Poetry, Fiction, etc.
+
+A MYSTERY PLAY IN HONOUR OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD. By the Rev. ROBERT
+HUGH BENSON. With Illustrations, Appendices, and Stage Directions. Cr.
+8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Words only. With a few notes. 6d. net.
+
+STORIES ON THE ROSARY. By LOUISE EMILY DOBRÉE. Parts I., II., III. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d. each.
+
+A TORN SCRAP BOOK. Talks and Tales illustrative of the "Our Father". By
+GENEVIÈVE IRONS. With a Preface by the Rev. R. HUGH BENSON. Crown 8vo.
+2s. 6d.
+
+MARIALE NOVUM: a Series of Sonnets on the Titles of Our Lady's Litany.
+By MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. Printed on hand-made paper, and
+bound in art green canvas, with cover design in blue and gilt, gilt top.
+Pott 4to. 3s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 5s. _net._
+
+ONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. WILFRID WARD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+OUT OF DUE TIME. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GREAT POSSESSIONS. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+
+Novels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell).
+
+SIMPLE ANNALS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+DORSET DEAR: Idylls of Country Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+LYCHGATE HALL: a Romance. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+CHRISTIAN THAL: a Story of Musical Life. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE MANOR FARM. With Frontispiece by Claude C. du Pré Cooper. Crown 8vo.
+6s.
+
+FIANDER'S WIDOW. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+PASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+YEOMAN FLEETWOOD. Crown 8vo. 3s. _net._
+
+Works by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.
+
+LISHEEN; or, The Test of the Spirits. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+LUKE DELMEGE. A Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GLENANAAR: a Story of Irish Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE BLINDNESS OF THE REVEREND DR. GRAY; or, the Final Law: a Novel of
+Clerical Life. 6s.
+
+"LOST ANGEL OF A RUINED PARADISE": a Drama of Modern Life. Crown 8vo.
+3s. 6d.
+
+PARERGA: being a Companion Volume to "Under the Cedars and the Stars".
+Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. _net._
+
+EARLY ESSAYS AND LECTURES. Cr. 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--_Essays._ Religious Instruction in Intermediate Schools--In a
+Dublin Art Gallery--Emerson--Free-Thought in America--German
+Universities (Three Essays)--German and Gallic Muses--Augustinian
+Literature--The Poetry of Matthew Arnold--Recent Works on St.
+Augustine--Aubrey de Vere (a Study). _Lectures._ Irish Youth and High
+Ideals--The Two Civilisations--The Golden Jubilee of O'Connell's
+Death--Our Personal and Social Responsibilities--The Study of Mental
+Science--Certain Elements of Character--The Limitations and
+Possibilities of Catholic Literature.
+
+
+Cardinal Newman's Works.
+
+1. SERMONS.
+
+PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR, from the
+"Parochial and Plain Sermons". Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, between 1826
+and 1843. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCOURSES TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OCCASIONAL SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+2. TREATISES.
+
+THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+UNIVERSITY TEACHING considered in nine discourses. Being the First Part
+of "The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated". With a Preface by
+the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. _net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+A GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. AN INDEXED SYNOPSIS OF NEWMAN'S
+"GRAMMAR OF ASSENT". By the Rev. JOHN J. TOOHEY, S.J. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+3. HISTORICAL.
+
+HISTORICAL SKETCHES. Three vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+VOL. I.--The Turks in their Relation to Europe--- Marcus Tullius
+Cicero--Apollonius of Tyana--Primitive Christianity.
+
+VOL. II.--The Church of the Fathers--St. Chrysostom--Theodoret--Mission
+of St. Benedict--Benedictine Schools.
+
+VOL. III.--Rise and Progress of Universities (originally published as
+"Office and Work of Universities")--Northmen and Normans in England and
+Ireland--Mediæval Oxford--Convocation of Canterbury.
+
+THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. Reprinted from "Historical Sketches". Vol.
+II. With a Preface by the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s.
+_net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+4. ESSAYS.
+
+TWO ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture
+and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame? 6. An
+Argument for Christianity.
+
+ESSAYS, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two vols., with notes. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Mennais. 5.
+Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican
+Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Huntingdon. 10.
+Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Antichrist of Protestants.
+12. Milman's View of Christianity. 13. Reformation of the XI. Century.
+14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble.
+
+5. THEOLOGICAL.
+
+THE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SELECT TREATISES OF ATHANASIUS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+TRACTS: THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. Dissertatiunculæ. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
+Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.
+Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture.
+
+6. POLEMICAL.
+
+THE VIA MEDIA OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+Vol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. Vol. II. Occasional Letters
+and Tracts.
+
+DIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I.
+Twelve Lectures. Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed
+Virgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.
+
+PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+Pocket Edition. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 3s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. Sewed, 6d. _net._
+
+_The "Pocket" Edition and the "Popular" Edition of this book contain a
+letter, hitherto unpublished, written by Cardinal Newman to Canon
+Flanagan in 1857, which may be said to contain in embryo the "Apologia"
+itself._
+
+7. LITERARY.
+
+VERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DREAM OF GERONTIUS. 16mo. Sewed, 6d. Cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+School Edition, with Introduction and Notes by Maurice Francis Egan,
+A.M., LL.D., Professor of English Language and Literature in the
+Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. With Portrait. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+Presentation Edition, with an Introduction specially written for this
+Edition by E. B(L). With Photogravure Portrait of Cardinal Newman, and 5
+other Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, bound in cream cloth, with gilt
+top. 3s. _net._
+
+With Fac-similes of the original Fair Copy and of portions of the first
+rough draft. Together with a Biographical Sketch of the Rev. John
+Gordon, of the Congregation of the Oratory, to whom the poem is
+inscribed, containing an appreciation by Cardinal Newman. Imperial
+folio. 31s. 6d. _net._
+
+*** _This issue is restricted to 525 copies, of which 500 are
+for sale._
+
+LOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+CALLISTA: A Tale of the Third Century. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+8. DEVOTIONAL.
+
+MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. Part I. Meditations for the Month of May.
+Novena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. Meditations
+and Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. Part III. Meditations
+on Christian Doctrine. Conclusion. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Also in Three Parts as follows. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. _net_ each.
+
+Part I. THE MONTH OF MAY.
+
+Part II. STATIONS OF THE CROSS.
+
+Part III. MEDITATIONS ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
+
+
+LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE
+ENGLISH CHURCH. With a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's
+request, by ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+ADDRESSES TO CARDINAL NEWMAN, WITH HIS REPLIES, 1879-81. Edited by the
+Rev. W. P. NEVILLE (Cong. Orat.). With Portrait Group. Oblong crown 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] _Collected Essays_, i. 35.
+
+[2] _Lectures on Evolution_, Cheap Edition, p. 16.
+
+[3] _Conservation of Energy_, § 210, p. 153.
+
+[4] F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., _The Lesson of Evolution_ (1902), pp. 9-11.
+
+[5] _Nineteenth Century_, February, 1889. p. 173.
+
+[6] This term is now applied almost exclusively to _physical science_,
+or that whose province is the observation of phenomena and inferences
+directly deducible from them. To avoid confusion, this sense of the word
+"Science" will be here adopted: it is nevertheless objectionable
+inasmuch as it implies that--as Professor Huxley following Hume would
+have it--sound knowledge is restricted, outside the field of
+mathematics, to "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and
+existence." But although all premisses or data of inference come to us
+first through the gates of sense, there is much, beyond the limits
+within which sensible experience is confined, to a knowledge of which
+inference can lead us, and of which we become certain before experience
+can verify what we have thus learnt. Thus a chipped flint or a fragment
+of pottery is universally recognized as evidencing the work of man: a
+single page of Virgil would suffice--apart from all other
+information--to prove its author to have been both a poet and a scholar:
+the shipwrecked mariner cast on an unknown shore argued soundly from the
+sight of a gibbet that he had reached a civilized land ruled by law. But
+more than this, Science herself proceeds on this principle to the
+recognition not only of forces, the character of which is known by
+previous experience, but of others concerning which she knows nothing at
+all, except through the very effects from which she argues. Thus, as all
+bodies left free are found to draw towards one another in a certain
+mode, it is concluded with absolute confidence that there is a force
+making them do so, although this is in itself utterly imperceptible, and
+is known only by the way in which bodies behave under what must be its
+influence. Yet, who questions the existence of Gravitation? In like
+manner, the phenomena of light force us to admit the existence of the
+Ether, as the medium through which its waves are transmitted. Yet, we
+are compelled to attribute to this medium qualities apparently so
+incompatible that, as the late Lord Salisbury said, Ether remains, "a
+half discovered entity." But little as we can realize its nature, we
+have no doubt that such a medium exists.
+
+[7] "Value of the Natural History Sciences" (_Lay Sermons_), p. 75.
+
+[8] Italics his.
+
+[9] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, English translation,
+1903, Preface, p. vii.
+
+[10] _Riddle of the Universe_, Cheap English Edition, p. 2.
+
+[11] _ibid._, p. 85.
+
+[12] And also, it should be added, travelling bodily through space with
+a movement of "translation."
+
+[13] _Ibid._
+
+[14] _Ibid._, p. 2.
+
+[15] The 15th Chapter of Haeckel's _Natural History of Creation_ is
+devoted to this point.
+
+[16] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 32.
+
+[17] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 5.
+
+[18] _Ibid._, p. 78.
+
+[19] _Ibid._, p. 86.
+
+[20] _Ibid._, 134.
+
+[21] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 230.
+
+[22] _Presidential Address_, _Section D_, _Zoology_, Leeds, 1890.
+
+[23] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 2.
+
+[24] _Ibid._, p. 83.
+
+[25] "Pseudo-Scientific Realism," _Collected Essays_, i, 68, 74-78.
+
+[26] Newman, _Grammar of Assent_, p. 72. A "Law of Nature," as has
+already been said, is simply a statement of what _de facto_ has always
+been found to occur under certain conditions, and may consequently be
+expected again. It is obvious however that such expectation is
+implicitly based on the existence of some cause capable of ensuring the
+result.
+
+[27] "The Teaching of Natural Philosophy," _Contemporary Review_, Jan.,
+1878.
+
+[28] _Lay Sermons_, p. 83.
+
+[29] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[30] See Wasmann "Gedanken zur Entwicklungslehre," _Stimmen aus
+Maria-Laach_, vol. 63, p. 298.
+
+[31] _Contemporary Review_, ut sup., p. 301.
+
+[32] Professor Weldon, F.R.S., in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_.
+
+[33] _Collected Essays_, v. 41.
+
+[34] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 75.
+
+[35] Professor Garnett in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. By "Force" is
+understood "any cause which tends to alter a body's natural state of
+rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line." Of the nature of such
+causes science professes to know very little, and as Clerk-Maxwell, who
+knew as much as most men, sang apropos of a lecture of Professor Tait's:
+
+    ... Tait writes in lucid symbols clear one small equation;
+    And Force becomes of Energy a mere space-variation.
+
+
+[36] Balfour Stewart, _Conservation of Energy_, § 115; by Clerk-Maxwell,
+_apud_ Garnett, _ut sup._
+
+[37] Tyndall, _Fragments of Science_, 5th Edition, p. 23.
+
+[38] _Conservation of Energy_, § 209.
+
+[39] Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin.
+
+[40] March 29, 1888.
+
+[41] So of another effort in the same direction Capt. Hutton tells us:
+"The last champion in the field is Professor A. W. Bickerton, who thinks
+he has found a way in which this dismal conclusion, as he considers it,
+may be averted. But he is not very sure about it, and has to assume:
+first, that space contains now and always will contain, a large quantity
+of cosmic dust scattered through it with some approach to uniformity;
+and secondly, that the Universe consists of an infinite number of what
+he calls 'cosmic systems,' travelling through space, constantly throwing
+off dust in all directions and occasionally colliding. As all this is
+pure assumption and highly improbable, I cannot think that Professor
+Bickerton has brought forward any serious objection to the theory of the
+dissipation of energy, and his hypothesis must be added to the list of
+failures." (_Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14, _n._)
+
+[42] _Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14.
+
+[43] _Darwin and after Darwin_, p. 17.
+
+[44] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[45] _Über die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben Welträthsel_,
+Leipzic, 1882.
+
+[46] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Du Bois-Reymond does not say that they are soluble, but only that
+he cannot pronounce them "transcendental."
+
+[48] Samuel Laing, _Modern Science and Modern Thought_, Cheap Edition,
+p. 19.
+
+[49] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 86.
+
+[50] _Ibid._
+
+[51] P. 78.
+
+[52] P. 64.
+
+[53] _Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 23.
+
+[54] _Belfast Address_, 1874.
+
+[55] _Lay Sermons._ "On the Physical Basis of Life," p. 143.
+
+[56] Professor Tait, _Properties of Matter_, § 108.
+
+[57] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 301.
+
+[58] _Story of Creation_, p. 11.
+
+[59] _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1903, p. 399.
+
+[60] Or "primal stuff." This looks remarkably like the old _Materia
+Prima_ of the Schoolmen translated into Greek.
+
+[61] _Ibid._ _The Revelations of Radium._
+
+[62] _Ibid._, p. 398.
+
+{_Note._--It is often assumed that the composite character of the
+atom--if fully established--must upset the Atomic Theory. This is not
+so; all that the new hypothesis does is to go further back in accounting
+for the Atomic Theory, and for all practical purposes things remain
+exactly as they were; except, indeed, that the dissolution of matter
+does away with what was held as one of the most assured conclusions of
+science.}
+
+[63] The Nebular Hypothesis itself is, of course, far from being an
+established certainty, and is not devoid of grave difficulties. Into
+these, however, it is not necessary now to enter.
+
+[64] _Apud_ Gaynor, _The New Materialism_, p. 83.
+
+[65] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[66] _Apud_ Gaynor, p. 84.
+
+[67] Professor Marsh.
+
+[68] Professor Dewar at Belfast, 1902.
+
+[69] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, 3rd Edition, p. 6.
+
+[70] Gaynor, p. 102.
+
+[71] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[72] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 305.
+
+[73] Being the year in which this passage was written.
+
+[74] Viz. that of the derivation of life from life alone, as opposed to
+_Abiogenesis_, or its production from lifeless matter.
+
+[75] See _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation," for a full
+account.
+
+[76] March 18, 1863. _Life and Letters_, i. 352.
+
+[77] April 30, 1870. _Ibid._ ii. 17.
+
+[78] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 238.
+
+[79] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[80] _Evolution and the Origin of Life_, 1874, p. 23.
+
+[81] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[82] _Fragments of Science._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[83] _Ibid._ "Scientific use of the imagination."
+
+[84] _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation."
+
+[85] _Ibid._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[86] _Ibid._ "Vitality."
+
+[87] _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1886, p. 769.
+
+[88] Italics mine.
+
+[89] It has been established by Pasteur and others that the highest
+temperature at which organic life is possible is 45° _Centigrade_ (113°
+_Fahrenheit_). When the globe had cooled to this point from its
+primitive molten condition, the epoch of terrestrial life commenced.
+
+According to what is perhaps the latest theory, that of M. Quinton, the
+temperature immediately below this, 44° _Centigrade_, remains always the
+best for living things, and those creatures are highest in the scale of
+life, and consequently the most developed, which have contrived means of
+keeping their internal heat at, or about, this level, despite the
+refrigeration of their surroundings. In their blood-heat M. Quinton
+therefore finds an absolute rule for fixing the relative rank of organic
+forms, and the date of their appearance; those whose blood is warmest
+being the most recently evolved. The results of this new system are
+sufficiently startling. Birds are to be classed as the highest and
+newest of all; while man, with the other _Primates_, has to take a much
+lower place, the ungulates, including the horse and donkey, and the
+carnivora, as dogs and cats, being his superiors. (_La Revue des Idées_,
+January 15, 1904, pp. 29 seq.)
+
+[90] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[91] To Sir J. D. Hooker, March 29, 1863.
+
+[92] To V. Carus, November 21, 1866.
+
+[93] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[94] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[95] _As regards Protoplasm_, p. 21.
+
+[96] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[97] Printed in _Lay Sermons_.
+
+[98] _Nature_, June 5, 1902, p. 121.
+
+[99] _Id. ibid._
+
+[100] _Op. cit._ p. 27.
+
+[101] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1887.
+
+[102] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 66.
+
+[103] _Op. cit._ ii. 63.
+
+[104] _Darwinism_, p. 474.
+
+[105] The other stages presenting similar difficulties are the 5th and
+6th of Du Bois-Reymond's Enigmas, viz. the introduction of sensation or
+consciousness (animal life), and of rational thought and speech.
+
+[106] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 298.
+
+[107] _Die sieben Welträthsel_, D. 82.
+
+[108] Professor Huxley, it must be remarked, speaks of Homer as a "half
+savage Greek" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 12), and intimates a mild wonder that
+such a being could share our feelings in presence of nature to so large
+an extent as his poems testify. This is undoubtedly a fine example of
+the good conceit of ourselves which the pursuit of science is rather apt
+to produce.
+
+[109] _Darwinism_, p. 475.
+
+[110] _Descent of Man_, c. ii.
+
+[111] _Ibid._ 54.
+
+[112] In his paper read before the British Association at Oxford in
+1847.
+
+[113] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 89.
+
+[114] See Mivart, _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 166.
+
+[115] See Louis Arnould, _Une âme en prison_, and article "An imprisoned
+Soul," by the Ctesse. de Courson, _The Month_, January, 1902, p. 82.
+
+[116] _Descent of Man_, i. 57.
+
+[117] i.e. ape-like.
+
+[118] Quoted by Romanes, _Mental Evolution in Man_.
+
+[119] _Ibid._, p. 371.
+
+[120] _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 385.
+
+[121] _Op. cit._ p. 379.
+
+[122] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 46.
+
+[123] "Ontogeny" signifies the genesis of the individual, "Phylogeny"
+that of the race. Accordingly, when rendered into ordinary language,
+declarations such as these, unsupported as they are by any evidence, are
+found to mean that the development of the individual, tells us all about
+the development of the individual, and the development of the race all
+about that of the race. Is it really supposed, as it would seem to be,
+that such points are scientifically settled by translating terms into
+Greek?
+
+[124] _Lavengro_, passim.
+
+[125] _Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy_, p. 38.
+
+[126] _British Association Lecture_, 1873.
+
+[127] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 93.
+
+[128] _Origin of Species_ (5th Edition), p. 226.
+
+[129] Afterwards (April 17, 1863) Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker,
+"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
+Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by
+some wholly unknown process."
+
+[130] At a later period Mr. Darwin modified his views as to what he
+still termed "that wondrous organ the human eye," writing thus (_Descent
+of Man_, ii. 166): "We know what Helmholtz, the highest authority in
+Europe on the subject, has said about the human eye: that if an optician
+had sold him an instrument so carelessly made, he would have thought
+himself fully justified in returning it."
+
+It is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (_Vorträge und
+Reden_, i. 253, etc., English Edition, "_Popular Scientific Lectures_,"
+pp. 219, etc.), adding that "the eye has every possible defect that can
+be found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to
+itself." These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a
+good deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the
+first place, that in speaking as above he did so "from the narrow but
+legitimate point of view of an optician." Having then enumerated all the
+defects in question, he continues--"In an artificial camera, all these
+irregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not
+so, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of
+extreme difficulty to detect them." He adds that men in general not only
+are unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced
+to credit it. Also that they "almost always affect those portions of the
+field of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our
+attention." What is still more to the point, he observes, that the
+defects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is
+practical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical
+instrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that
+the eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or
+telescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they
+lack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes.
+"As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds
+Helmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very
+limitations set to its defects.... A man of any sense would not chop
+firewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the
+optical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to
+injury and slower in its development." Helmholtz therefore concludes
+that the eye is a product which "the wisest Wisdom may have
+pre-designed."
+
+It thus comes very much to Pope's solution:
+
+    Why has not man a microscopic eye?
+    For this plain reason: man is not a fly,--
+
+and in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about
+returning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap,
+unworthy of such a man.
+
+[131] _Life of C. Darwin_, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin,
+November 23, 1859.
+
+[132] _Animal Locomotion_ (International Scientific Series), p. 180.
+
+[133] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 69.
+
+[134] _Lectures on Evolution_ (Cheap Edition), p. 37.
+
+[135] _Philosophical Basis of Evolution_, passim.
+
+[136] By a _Final Cause_ is meant the predetermined result or end,
+towards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the
+ultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the
+_Final Cause_ of striking a match: while the striking of the match is
+the _Efficient Cause_ producing the light.
+
+[137] _Grammar of Assent_, p. 69.
+
+[138] _Familiar Lectures_, p. 458.
+
+[139] "On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':" _Life of C.
+Darwin_, ii. p. 187.
+
+[140] _Nineteenth Century_, No. 2. Reprinted in _Lectures and Essays_,
+p. 388 (2nd Edition).
+
+[141] _Studies in the Theory of Descent_, vol. ii. p. 710; _vid.
+Edinburgh Review_, October, 1902, _The Rise and Influence of Darwinism_.
+
+[142] _Ut sup._ p. 201.
+
+[143] _Sic._ The sense evidently requires either that the "not" should
+be deleted, or "prove" be substituted for "disprove" in the preceding
+line. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from which I
+quote, but likewise in the _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 307, where this
+passage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's _Natural
+History of Creation_, under the title of _The Genealogy of Animals_.
+
+[144] _Life and Letters_, ii. 195.
+
+[145] _Ibid._, p. 467.
+
+[146] _De Natura Deorum_, ii. 4.
+
+[147] _Principia, Schol. Gen._
+
+[148] _Unseen Universe_, p. 47.
+
+[149] _Burnett Lectures_, p. 327.
+
+[150] See report of his words emended by himself, _Nineteenth Century
+and After_, June, 1903.
+
+[151] Bradford, 1873.
+
+[152] Montreal, 1884.
+
+[153] _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 3rd Series, vol. v. p.
+138.
+
+[154] "Reception of 'Origin of Species,'" _ubi sup._ p. 199.
+
+[155] November 26, 1860.
+
+[156] May 22, 1860.
+
+[157] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[158] _The Scientific Basis of Morality_, by George Gore, LL.D., F.R.S.,
+p. 31.
+
+[159] May 22, 1860.
+
+[160] Bain, _De vi physica_, p. 76.
+
+[161] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 61.
+
+[162] Lord Grimthorpe, _op. cit._ 85.
+
+[163] Letter to the _Times_, June 2, 1903
+
+[164] The term _Monism_, invented by Wolf, originally bore a different
+meaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to signify
+equally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind, and the
+idealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor Haeckel, as
+will be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two names for one
+thing.
+
+[165] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_ (English translation),
+p. 60.
+
+[166] _Ibid._, p. 10.
+
+[167] _Ibid._, p. 3.
+
+[168] _Mind and Motion._
+
+[169] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.
+
+[170] _Ibid._, p. 74.
+
+[171] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 51.
+
+[172] _Presidential Address_, _Section A_, _British Association_,
+Norwich, 1868.
+
+[173] "Mr. Darwin's Critics." (_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 283.)
+
+[174] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 19.
+
+[175] To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is illustrated
+by Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting _Bird Watching_, where he
+casually observes, as a matter of course, that the "life-part" of a
+tom-tit is as important in the sum of things as Napoleon's (p. 248), and
+declares elsewhere, more formally (p. 335)--"Surely, a beautiful
+butterfly, that, for all time, charms--and raises by charming--some
+number of those who see it, does more good on this earth than any single
+man or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no 'foot-prints on the sands of
+time.' Homer, for instance, has left his _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and
+these have been, and still are, mighty in their effects. But let them
+once perish, and Homer will be caught up and overtaken by almost any
+bird or butterfly--even a brown one."
+
+[176] _First Principles._
+
+[177] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[178] As to the term "Chance" which he frequently used, Mr. Darwin wrote
+in one place (_Origin of Species_, Opening passage of c. v.): "I have
+hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and multiform
+with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with
+those in a state of nature--had been due to chance. This, of course, is
+a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
+ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." It is obvious,
+however, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we have
+heard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for it
+is absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of "Chance" quoted
+in the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind refuses to
+regard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know nothing, for
+that is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact, instinctively
+recognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if not due to
+purpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to the true and
+legitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed it.
+Occasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to
+defend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a
+factor.--_Vid. sup._, c. xii.
+
+[179] Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his system to
+_species_, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to the
+production of new _genera_, and even of divisions of the organic
+kingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus--apart from the most famous instance of
+all, treated by Darwin himself in his _Descent of Man_--it is now a
+cardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of
+life are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of
+development, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one
+identical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain
+that Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock,--and, still
+farther on, that at least all placental mammals--bats and whales,
+elephants and mice--trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.
+
+[180] _Origin of Species_, v.
+
+[181] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[182] _Ibid._, c. vi.
+
+[183] "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold
+all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now some
+small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel very
+uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I
+gaze at it, makes me sick." (_C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860._)
+
+[184] It will help to understand the nature of the task thus imposed
+upon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes on this
+subject (_Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 103):
+
+"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular
+shapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays
+of light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our
+eye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of
+proper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring
+all the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point
+without confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made
+machines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of
+them and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass
+melted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been
+built up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar
+and complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand,
+though we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they
+are persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again
+some of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of
+animals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a
+membrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of
+brush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of
+light; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be
+divided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be
+as long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish
+them; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a
+brush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of
+all these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in
+that organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living
+creatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet."
+
+[185] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[186] Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin supposed the
+workmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact and accurate
+than usually is the case,--there remains quite enough of architectural
+merit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to increase the
+mystery that the insects should thus appear to strive towards an ideal,
+which they frequently fail to satisfy.
+
+[187] _Ranunculus ficaria._ It is remarkable that in the season of 1904
+this plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in which
+such fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.
+
+[188] _Origin of Species_, c. xiv.
+
+[189] _Descent of Man_, Part I, c. i.
+
+[190] _Biological Lectures and Addresses_, p. 202.
+
+[191] _Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français_ (1870), p. 120.
+
+[192] _North British Review_, June, 1867. Professor Huxley likewise
+declared this criticism to be of "real and permanent value." (_Critiques
+and Addresses_, 252.)
+
+[193] _La vie des êtres animés_, p. 102.
+
+[194] Presidential Address Geologists' Association (_Proceedings_, vol.
+v. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in _Contemporary Review_, February, 1877,
+under the title "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[195] See APPENDIX A. p. 280a.
+
+[196] _Variation in Animals and Plants_, p. 343. By H. M. Verney
+(International Scientific Series, 88).
+
+[197] J. W. Barclay, _New Theory of Organic Evolution_, p. 90.
+
+[198] Huxley, _Lectures and Essays_ (Popular Edition), pp. 28, seq.
+
+[199] Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely
+discarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The
+wing of _Hesperornis_, for example, is now declared to be an instance of
+_degeneration_ from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be
+considered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the
+descendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has
+yet been discovered. (See Pycraft's _Story of Bird Life_, p. 190.)
+
+[200] _Philosophical Transactions Royal Society_, 1863, p. 36.
+
+[201] This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, _Final Causes_, 2nd
+English Edition, p. 245.
+
+[202] _Descent of Man_, ii. 156.
+
+[203] _Tablet_, May 26, 1888, p. 837.
+
+[204] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 297.
+
+[205] _Descent of Man_, _i._ p. 57.
+
+[206] In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the suggestion is
+put in form of a question: "May not some unusually wise ape-like animal
+...?"
+
+[207] _Origin of Species_, c. vi.
+
+[208] _Ibid._, c. viii.
+
+[209] It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only be
+mentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have no
+descendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of
+the whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their
+existence.
+
+[210] _Descent of Man_ (1st Edition), ii. 385.
+
+[211] _Ibid._, i. 107.
+
+[212] _Ibid._, ii. 386.
+
+[213] _Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français_, p. 151
+
+[214] _Ibid._, p. 167.
+
+[215] _La vie des êtres animés_, p. 161.
+
+[216] Saint-Hilaire.
+
+[217] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. p. 82.
+
+[218] _North British Review_, July, 1867, p. 316.
+
+[219] P. 313.
+
+[220] November 5, 1903, _Journal of Botany_, January, 1904, p. 32.
+
+[221] Dr. Hudson, see _Nature_, February 20, 1890, p. 375.
+
+[222] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[223] _Op. cit._ p. 59.
+
+[224] _History of Creation_, English Edition, ii. 353.
+
+[225] _The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's "Natürliche
+Schöpfungs-Geschichte."_ The _Academy_, 1869. Reprinted in _Critiques
+and Addresses_, and _Darwiniana_ (Collected Works).
+
+[226] The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is unknown,
+was supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found, however, that
+its removal entails _myxoedema_, a condition closely allied to
+cretinism.
+
+[227] "Geological Contemporaneity." (_Lay Sermons_, p. 206.)
+
+[228] Mr. Mivart, _Types of Animal Life_, p. 113.
+
+[229] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 13.
+
+[230] Mr. Mivart, _Tablet_, April 21, 1888.
+
+[231] The Mexican _Axolotl_, the _Triton Alpestris_, and probably
+others.
+
+[232] _Nature_, March 24, 1892.
+
+[233] i.e. the Science of Causes.
+
+[234] _Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales._
+
+[235] Thus having described in detail a series of experiments as to the
+effects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larvæ of various
+_hymenoptera_, M. Fabre writes:
+
+"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqués par
+Darwin." (_Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 330.)
+
+[236] _Journal of Linnean Society_, vol. xix.
+
+[237] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903, p. 218.
+
+[238] _Revue de Philosophie_, April 1, 1904.
+
+[239] _Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 317.
+
+[240] For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.
+
+[241] _Nature_, September 10, 1891.
+
+[242] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species._
+
+[243] _De opere sex dierum_, ii. 10, n. 12.
+
+[244] _Modern Idea of Evolution_, p. 97.
+
+[245] Darwin (_Origin of Species_, p. 274, 6th Edition) considers it
+"incredible" that the same identical species should originate twice even
+under the very same conditions. In the following passage, Haeckel
+affirms such unity of origin in respect of a most remarkable species of
+wide-reaching affinities.
+
+"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata,
+from the _Amphioxus_ upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia,
+reptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single
+vertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and
+highly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of
+processes or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a
+vertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the
+course of the earth's history." (Address to Munich meeting of German
+Association, vid. _Nature_, October 4, 1877.)
+
+[246] _Origin of Species_ (6th Edition), p. 265.
+
+[247] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii., 76.
+
+[248] _History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of Evolution_
+(1898).
+
+[249] Harebell.
+
+[250] According to the most recent system of classification, the
+Monopetalæ, now re-christened _Sympetalae_, are ranked above the
+Polypetalæ, the family of the _Compositae_ being highest of all.
+
+[251] _Proceedings_, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The substance of
+this address appeared as an article in the _Contemporary Review_,
+February, 1877, entitled, "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[252] See Appendix B. p. 284.
+
+[253] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_ (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.
+
+[254] These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are supposed by
+most naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear presently to
+have become extinct, no traces of them having been found in the chalk, a
+formation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor Marsh tells us
+on this subject (_Nature_, September 27, 1877, p. 471):
+
+"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence,
+either in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at
+essentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of
+Mammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens
+have been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and
+all are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in
+America, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at
+present only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the
+genus _Dromotherium_, supposed to be related to the insect-eating
+_Myrmecobius_, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe
+have yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet
+none of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of
+cretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world."
+
+[255] P. 118.
+
+[256] P. 105.
+
+[257] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. 34.
+
+[258] _Genesis of Species_, p. 129.
+
+[259] _Charles Darwin_, p. 185.
+
+[260] _Genesis of Species_, p. 130.
+
+[261] _Types of Animal Life_, 149.
+
+[262] _Genesis of Species_, p. 132.
+
+[263] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution" (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 251).
+
+[264] "Succession of Life on Earth." (_Half-hour Recreations_, 2nd
+Series, p. 329.)
+
+[265] _Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College, Manchester, p. 220, note.
+
+[266] See note, p. 238.
+
+[267] "Geological Contemporaneity," 1862. (_Lay Sermons_, p. 222.)
+
+[268] "Palæontology and Evolution," 1876. (_Critiques and Addresses_, p.
+182.)
+
+[269] P. 187.
+
+[270] P. 192.
+
+[271] _Genealogy of Animals._
+
+[272] _Natural History of Creation._
+
+[273] _Le Transformisme_, pp. 337-340.
+
+[274] _Lectures on Evolution_, New York, 1876. Cheap Edition, p. 43.
+
+[275] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species_, etc.
+
+[276] _Essays on Controverted Questions_, p. 450.
+
+[277] "Utebatur autem equo insigni, pedibus prope humanis, et in modum
+digitorum ungulis fissis; quem natum apud se, cum haruspices imperium
+orbis terrae significare domino pronuntiassent, magna cura aluit."
+(Suetonius, _Julius_, 61.)
+
+[278] The _radius_ and _ulna_ are the two bones of the forearm above the
+wrist; the _tibia_ and _fibula_ the corresponding bones of the leg above
+the ankle. In the horse, the _ulna_ and _fibula_ are almost, but not
+quite, lost.
+
+[279] Animals and plants are placed in different _species_ when the
+differences between them are only _relative_; in different _genera_,
+when such differences are _absolute_. Thus, for example, the size of
+teeth is considered relative; the number of teeth absolute.
+
+[280] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 3rd Series, vol. 43
+(1892), p. 351.
+
+[281] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, p. 119.
+
+[282] _Types of Animal Life_, 205.
+
+[283] Nicholson and Lydekker's _Manual of Palæontology_, ii. 1362.
+
+[284] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[285] _Lydekker_, p. 1361.
+
+[286] _Evolution of the Horse_, 12.
+
+[287] "Succession of Life on Earth" (_Recreations in Popular Science_,
+2nd Series, p. 339).
+
+[288] British Museum (_Nat. Hist._) _Guide to fossil mammals and birds_,
+p. 38.
+
+[289] _American Journal of Science and Art_, 3rd Series, vol. 43 (1892),
+p. 351.
+
+[290] _The Evolution of the Horse_, p. 16.
+
+[291] _Lydekker_, _ut sup._ p. 1363.
+
+[292] Sir W. Flower, _The Horse_, p. 74.
+
+[293] "It is a consequence of the theory of Natural Selection that
+identity of structure involves community of descent; a given result can
+only be arrived at through a given sequence of events; the same
+morphological goal cannot be reached by two independent paths." Milnes
+Marshall, _Biological Lectures_, 247.
+
+[294] _Origin of Species_, c. xi. "Geological Succession of Organic
+Beings."
+
+[295] _Tablet_, April 21, 1888, p. 637.
+
+[296] _Catalogue of Mammals_, etc., _ut sup._ p. 38.
+
+[297] _Chain of Life_, p. 222.
+
+[298] _Les Enchainements du Monde Animal_ ... Mammifères Tertiaires.
+
+[299] _Chain of Life_, 227.
+
+[300] It is the "fingers" of the bat's "hand" which support the wing
+membrane. Hence the scientific name _Cheiroptera_.
+
+[301] E.g. Dinotherium giganteum and Elephas meridionalis. (Vid. Gaudry,
+_op. cit._ 169.)
+
+[302] Lecture at Royal Institution, January 2, 1904.
+
+[303] A remarkable instance of the need of caution is furnished by the
+history of the Dinotherium itself. From the teeth, first found, Cuvier
+set down the animal as a monster Tapir. Then, a whole skull being
+discovered, Herr Kaup of Darmstadt, commenting upon the danger of such a
+proceeding, himself classed the beast among the Edentata (Sloths, etc.),
+and afterwards among the Hippopotami. Buckland and Strauss thought it
+must have been an aquatic creature; Blainville and Pictet labelled it a
+Manatee, or sea-cow. (Vid. Gaudry, _op. cit._ 187-9.)
+
+[304] _Op. cit._ p. 191.
+
+[305] Milnes Marshall, _Lectures on Darwinian Theory_, p. 66.
+
+[306] See Appendix C. p. 285.
+
+[307] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, c. iv.
+
+[308] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution." (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 200.)
+
+[309] _History of Creation_, ii. 92, English Edition.
+
+[310] _Ibid._, p. 295.
+
+[311] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 76.
+
+[312] As an instance M. de Quatrefages cites Haeckel's own words, from
+his _Anthropogenie_. "The Vertebrate Ancestor No. 15, akin to the
+Salamanders, must have been a species of Saurian (Lizard). There remains
+to us no fossil relic of this animal; in no respect did he resemble any
+form actually existing. Nevertheless, comparative anatomy and ontogeny
+authorize us in affirming that he once existed. We will call this animal
+_Protamnion_."
+
+[313] _Ibid._, p. 122.
+
+[314] _Revue Scientifique_ (1886), p. 486.
+
+[315] _Ibid._ (1877), I. 1101.
+
+[316] _Origin of Species_, c. x.
+
+[317] _Genesis of Species_, p. 134.
+
+[318] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. vi.
+
+[319] _Op. cit._, p. 288.
+
+[320] _Life of Darwin_, ii. 193.
+
+[321] _Epistle_ I--to Pope.
+
+[322] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903.
+
+[323] _Order of Nature_, p. 239.
+
+[324] _Thoughts on Religion_, p. 123.
+
+[325] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1871.
+
+[326] _Système Analytique des Connaissances positives de l'homme_
+(1830), pp. 8, 43.
+
+[327] _North American Slime Moulds_, Introduction, p. II.
+
+[328] Bloud's _Science et Religion_, No. 431, pp. 50, seq.
+
+[329] _Traité de Microbiologie_, I., p. 253. Also the Magazine
+_Broteria_ (Lisbon), Vol. vi., 1907, Botany, p. 23.
+
+[330] See _Nature_, June 4, 1903, p. 113, in notice of a paper on the
+subject by Professor F. W. Oliver and Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S.
+
+[331] _Linnean Society's Proceedings_, May 3, 1906.
+
+[332] See the _Congress Report_, vol. iv.
+
+[333] _Transactions American Philosophical Society_ (N.S.), 18, 1896,
+pp. 119, 120.
+
+[334] _The Origin and Influence of the Thorough-bred Horse._ Cambridge,
+1905.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by 
+John Gerard
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 33859-0.txt or 33859-0.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/8/5/33859/
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/33859-0.zip b/33859-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2b3e1b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-0.zip
diff --git a/33859-8.txt b/33859-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..934acee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,10012 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by John Gerard
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer
+
+Author: John Gerard
+
+Release Date: October 15, 2010 [EBook #33859]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER
+
+     The Lord St. Alban would say to some philosophers--"Gentlemen,
+     nature is a labyrinth, in which the very haste you move with, will
+     make you lose your way."
+                                     BACON, _Apophthegms_.
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE
+AND THE NEWEST
+ANSWER
+
+BY
+JOHN GERARD, S.J., F.L.S.
+
+_FOURTH EDITION_
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON,
+NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
+
+1907
+
+
+
+
+ROEHAMPTON:
+
+PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+The enemies of Science are not the philistines alone--if any still
+remain--who would muzzle or stifle her. More numerous and dangerous are
+those--professedly of her own household--who ascribe to her pretensions
+of which she herself knows nothing, and strive to make her responsible
+for a philosophy entirely beyond her scope. With this object efforts are
+assiduously made to popularize the idea that nothing in heaven or earth
+is beyond her ken, and that she has rendered all such beliefs impossible
+as alone can satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity. At the same time
+the very brilliance of her achievements is apt to dazzle our eyes,
+blinding them to the extremely narrow limits of the field in which she
+can operate, and making us rush to the conclusion that she has solved
+the riddle which from the beginning of time Nature has offered to every
+thinking mind,--or at least that what her search-light cannot illumine
+must for ever remain unknowable.
+
+How far such assumptions are rational, it is the object of the present
+enquiry to examine by means of the evidence furnished by Science herself
+in her own regard.
+
+I have to thank Mr. W. E. Darwin for permission to use the illustration
+of feathers of the Argus Pheasant from his illustrious father's _Descent
+of Man_, and for the loan of blocks for the purpose. Through the
+courtesy of Messrs. Macmillan I am allowed to copy a portion of the
+plate in the late Professor Huxley's _Lectures on Evolution_,
+illustrating his pedigree of the Horse. If I forbear to mention others
+who have kindly supplied me with information, it is only lest it might
+be supposed that they are anywise responsible for the use I have made of
+it. The design on the cover of the present volume I owe to my friend Mr.
+Paul Woodroffe.
+
+J. G.
+
+_March_ 10, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
+
+
+In this edition, which has been thoroughly revised throughout, a few
+corrections have had to be made, especially in the Index, and in one or
+two instances alterations or additions have appeared advisable for the
+sake of clearness or accuracy of expression. Nothing has, however, as
+yet been brought to the author's notice which affects any substantial
+point in what he has written.
+
+_July_ 28, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
+
+
+This edition has again been thoroughly revised, and some new matter
+appended which bears on various points raised in the original volume,
+especially the establishment of the important group of the
+_Cycado-filices_, as affecting the succession of plant life on the
+earth, and recent evidence concerning the pedigree of the horse.
+
+_December_ 21, 1906.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+                                                                PAGES
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+Certainty that there was a Beginning of the World--What
+was there before?--The Great Problem, to be
+answered by Reason and Science                                    1-3
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+Principles of Reasoning--Scope and method of Science              4-7
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+EVOLUTION
+
+Term variously used for a Process and a Principle. We
+commence with the latter                                          8-9
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+Evolution as a Philosophy--Main features of the
+system                                                          10-14
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+Erroneous use of the term frequent: its scientific use          15-19
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+A combination of two other "Laws," viz.--The indestructibility
+of Matter, and the Conservation of
+Energy--But there is also Dissipation of Energy--Consequences
+inferred from this as to the Duration
+of the Universe                                                 20-28
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+The "Law of Continuity"--Alleged breaches--Seven
+evolutionary stages deduced to be scientifically
+unexplained, or even inexplicable                               29-34
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+Constitution and Properties of Matter inconsistent with
+Haeckel's evolutionary system--Also the Laws of
+Motion--Radium and its revelations                              35-44
+
+CHAPTER IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+Evolution here considered as a process--In its larger
+sense, postulates spontaneous generation--which,
+however, Science disallows--Protoplasm and Crystallization      45-66
+
+CHAPTER X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+Origin of simple sensation and consciousness even less
+explicable than that of life--Gulf between man
+and the lower animals--Language exclusively
+human--The significance of Free-will can be impugned
+only by the absurdity of denying its existence                  67-85
+
+CHAPTER XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+The order of the _Cosmos_ requires a Cause--No cause
+known to us can produce such a result except Intelligence--Hence
+we infer Purpose or Design and
+are led to Theism--Scientific evidence as to this,
+"the Grand Question"                                           86-109
+
+CHAPTER XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+What "Chance" means--It is the sole alternative to
+Purpose or Design--Arguments against Purposive
+Creation--The Existence of Pain--The Mysteries
+of Generation                                                 110-125
+
+CHAPTER XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+The Monistic Philosophy--Its utter lack of a scientific
+basis--Contradicted by the ideas of morality and
+truth--Not really adopted by Monists themselves               126-139
+
+CHAPTER XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+"Evolution" now to be considered in its most restricted
+signification--Organic Evolution, or "Transformism,"
+not identical with Darwinism--The
+nature of the questions before us                             140-148
+
+CHAPTER XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+Though no essential part of our enquiry, Darwinism
+must be studied on account of importance ascribed
+to it--Baseless claims on its behalf--True character
+of the system--Natural Selection and its mode of
+action--Phenomena which seem to favour Darwinism--Difficulties
+on the other side--Limits of
+Variation--Specific stability--Adverse probabilities--Natural
+selection can produce nothing--Transitional
+developments useless or harmful--Artistic
+ornaments unexplained--Flaws in argument--Organic
+progress--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--Scientific
+opinion as to Darwinism                                       149-203
+
+CHAPTER XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+Pal�ontology furnishes the only sound basis for argument--The
+nature of the evidence required--The
+history of Life as known to us is inconsistent
+with evolutionary theories--Haeckel's "ante-periods"--Conclusion
+to which facts point                                          204-238
+
+CHAPTER XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+Arguments on behalf of Evolution--The genealogy of
+the Horse--Haeckel's Pedigree of Man--Darwin's
+plea of imperfection of the geological record--No
+evolutionary process is yet demonstrated; Still less
+has anything been done to establish Evolution as a
+creative force                                                239-269
+
+CHAPTER XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+Reason leads to conclusions which physical science cannot
+reach--The recognition of a First Cause beyond the
+Sensible Universe an intellectual necessity--Knowledge
+of this cause attainable by reason--Conclusion                270-280
+
+APPENDICES
+
+A. Recent Scientific Verdicts concerning Darwinism and
+Transformism                                                      281
+
+B. Development of Plant life--the _Cycadofilices_                 284
+
+C. The Course of Evolution                                        285
+
+D. The pedigree of the Horse: further evidence                    286
+
+INDEX                                                             289
+
+FOOTNOTES
+
+
+
+
+I
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+
+That the world as we know it had a beginning is a truth which there is
+no denying. Not only have philosophers always argued that it must be so:
+the researches of physical science assure us that it has been so in
+fact. Astronomy, says Professor Huxley,[1] "leads us to contemplate
+phenomena the very nature of which demonstrates that they must have had
+a beginning." The hypothesis that phenomena of Nature similar to those
+exhibited by the present world have always existed, the same authority
+assures us,[2] "is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as we
+have, which is of so plain and so simple a character that it is
+impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it forces
+upon us." This conclusion, physicists tell us, is inevitable when we
+study the laws by which the operations of Nature are governed, and as
+Professor Balfour Stewart writes,[3] we thus become "absolutely certain"
+that these operations cannot have existed for ever, and that a time
+will come when they must cease. In like manner, a recent and competent
+witness to the conclusions of contemporary Science, lays down,[4] as one
+of the truths which her latest discoveries compel us to accept, that the
+world is not eternal, that the earth is cooling from a state of heat
+rendering life impossible, to one of physical exhaustion equally fatal
+to it. Accordingly "Life must have had a beginning and must come to an
+end,"--and our whole Solar System (he adds) must similarly have had a
+commencement, at a period not infinitely remote.
+
+But, if the world had a beginning, what was there before it began?
+Something there must have been, and something which had the power of
+producing it. Had there ever been nothing, there could never have been
+anything, for, _Ex nihilo nihil fit_. That nothing should turn into
+something is an idea which the mind refuses to entertain. Nor is the
+case any better even if we suppose that matter had no beginning, that it
+has existed for ever as we know it now, and that at first there was
+nothing else. For if so, whence have all these things arisen which,
+according to all observation and experiment, matter cannot produce, as,
+organic life, sensitive life, consciousness, reason, moral goodness? Had
+matter been always what it now is, and had there been no source beyond
+matter whence the power of producing all these things could be derived,
+they could never have been produced at all, or else they would have
+come into being without a cause. It would be like a milestone growing
+into an apple-tree, or a mountain spontaneously giving birth to a mouse.
+
+We are therefore compelled by common-sense to ask when we consider
+Nature, What is the force or power at the back of her, which first set
+her going, and whence she draws the capability of performing the
+operations which we find her performing every day; that force or power
+which must be the ultimate origin of everything that is in the world?
+This is the great fundamental problem which the student of Nature has to
+face, and beside it all others fade into insignificance. It is with this
+that we are now engaged. We have to ask how our reason bids us answer
+it, and the first question which arises naturally is, What light is
+thrown on the subject by modern Science, of whose achievements we are
+all so justly proud?
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+
+In studying a question such as this, we must commence by being
+determined, on the one hand to accept nothing as true but what our
+reason warrants us in believing, and on the other hand to follow the
+guidance of reason as far as, rightly used, it will lead us. The
+principle formulated[5] by Professor Huxley, as the foundation-stone of
+what he termed "Agnosticism," is that which must needs be adopted, and
+as a matter of fact has ever been adopted, by rational men.
+
+     Positively--in matters of the intellect follow your reason as far
+     as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
+     negatively--in matters of the intellect do not pretend that
+     conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
+
+But to justify the confidence which we thus repose in it we must
+obviously be careful to use our reason aright, and not to attribute to
+it any conclusions which it does not really sanction. It is this right
+use of reason that is specially claimed for modern "Science,"[6] which,
+as we are again assured by Professor Huxley, is only another name for
+sound reasoning--"_Science_," he declares,[7] "_is, I believe, nothing
+but trained and organized common-sense_.[8] ... The man of science, in
+fact, simply uses with scrupulous exactness, the methods which we all,
+habitually and at every moment, use carelessly."
+
+There can be no sort of question that so long as men of science really
+act thus, and confine themselves to the treatment of matters in regard
+of which they can claim special knowledge, common sense bids us listen
+to them with respect, and even with submission. But the same common
+sense requires that we should satisfy ourselves that they truly deserve
+the character assigned them, and pretend to no knowledge on the score of
+Science but what their scientific methods are competent to acquire. When
+they step beyond this their own proper domain, whatever weight may be
+given to their opinions upon other grounds, they cease to speak in the
+name of Science.
+
+What then, we must ask, is the province of Science, and what are her
+methods?
+
+"Science," always understanding by the term physical or experimental
+Science, deals with the universe so far as it is known to us through our
+senses. The universe known thus we call "Nature," and the whole stock in
+trade of Science is the examination and verification of natural
+phenomena, with such inferences therefrom as ascertained facts
+legitimately suggest. From careful and trustworthy observation she can
+learn what are called the "Laws of Nature," that is to say the manner in
+which the various elements and forces of the universe are found
+constantly to act, in given circumstances; she can, to some extent,
+discover the chain of causes and effects, or more properly of
+conditions and consequences, through which natural operations are
+carried on. She can even construct hypotheses as to what she cannot
+directly observe, namely, the nature of substances and forces; and such
+hypotheses are justified in proportion as they are found to tally with
+facts. If constantly thus justified, they are styled theories, and come
+to be practically assumed as established truths. But it must ever be
+remembered that Science can take no step in advance which is not based
+on fact, and that when facts are not forthcoming for its support an
+hypothesis or a theory has no scientific value.
+
+Bearing this in mind, we will proceed to enquire what Science has to
+tell us regarding the origin of the world, and the manner in which it
+has come to be what it is.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+"EVOLUTION"
+
+
+We are constantly assured that Science compels us to believe in
+"Evolution," and that in this doctrine is to be found the explanation of
+the universe whereof we are in quest. We must however in the first place
+make sure that we understand what "Evolution" means, and if we look into
+the question, it speedily appears that the term is very differently
+understood by those who use it.
+
+Some who style themselves "Evolutionists" mean only that, as a matter of
+established fact, the organic world, the world of life, whether animal
+or vegetable, has been brought to its present condition by _genetic_
+development of one species from another, in the natural course of
+descent and through the operation of natural laws; and that as we see
+plants and animals of the same kind propagated one from another at the
+present day, so in the course of long ages the lower and simpler forms
+of life have given birth to the higher and more complex.
+
+Others again do not limit this process to organic creatures, and believe
+that from first to last, the whole world, inorganic and organic alike,
+has resulted from the action of forces such as those with which Science
+deals; and that life has thus arisen in purely natural course out of
+non-living matter, the universe in its original condition having been
+constituted as a vast machine which was bound to produce all that has
+since arisen.
+
+In either of the above senses--of which the second obviously includes
+the first,--"Evolution" is understood as no more than a _process_ which
+is said to have occurred. But there is a more extreme school which takes
+"Evolution" for much more, namely for a power, principle, or "law,"
+which both governs and accounts for everything, and requires no further
+cause beyond itself.
+
+If this paramount "Law of Evolution" can be established, there is
+clearly an end of our enquiry, for here is the ultimate explanation of
+everything which we are seeking. But what has Science to say concerning
+it?
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+
+That there is a self-existing and self-sufficing "Law of Evolution" to
+which everything in the world must be ascribed, is the doctrine of those
+Evolutionists who are most active in propagating their creed and who
+most loudly proclaim that it alone is scientific. The great leader and
+prophet of this school, Professor Ernst Haeckel, assures us[9] that he
+gives expression,
+
+     to that rational view of the world which is being forced upon us
+     with such logical rigour by the modern advancements in our
+     knowledge of nature as a unity, a view in reality held by almost
+     all unprejudiced and thinking men of science, although but few have
+     the courage (or the need) to declare it openly.
+
+The plain and rational conclusion thus exhibited is, he tells us,[10]
+the special glory of modern research.
+
+     It is true [he writes] that there were philosophers who spoke of
+     the evolution of things a thousand years ago; but the recognition
+     that such a law dominates the entire universe, and that the world
+     is nothing else than an eternal "evolution of substance," is a
+     fruit of the nineteenth century.
+
+So far as concerns the world which we actually inhabit, its first
+beginning, we must, he tells us, suppose[11] to have been a vast nebula
+of infinitely attenuated and light material, rotating upon its own
+axis.[12]
+
+     Given this first beginning of the cosmogonic movement, it is easy,
+     on mathematical principles, to deduce and mathematically establish
+     the further phenomena of the foundation of the cosmic bodies, the
+     separation of the planets, and so forth.
+
+Nor are we to suppose that the beginning of this particular process was
+in any true sense a beginning at all. Evolutionary philosophy such as
+Professor Haeckel's, necessarily teaches that beginnings and endings
+succeed one another everlastingly, one world-system arising phoenix-like
+from the ashes of another.
+
+     The nebular hypothesis above described has recently [we are
+     told][13] been strongly confirmed and enlarged by the theory that
+     this cosmogonic process did not simply take place once, but is
+     periodically repeated. While new cosmic bodies arise and develop,
+     out of rotating masses of nebula in some parts of the universe, in
+     other parts old, extinct, frigid suns come into collision, and are
+     once more reduced by the heat generated to the condition of nebul�.
+
+It appears, in fact, to be assumed that this cyclic process has been
+actually demonstrated, for we are told[14] that astronomy reveals, in
+the endless depths of space, "Millions of circling spheres, larger than
+our earth, and, like it, in an eternal rhythm of life and death."
+
+Moreover, "life" is here to be understood literally, for it is a
+cardinal article of such evolutionary belief that equally with the
+foundation of cosmic bodies and the separation of planets, the
+production of organic life, of plants and animals, has been wrought by
+forces which the material universe contains within itself,[15] and
+accordingly,[16]
+
+     We now definitely know that the organic world on our earth has been
+     continuously developed "in accordance with eternal iron laws." ...
+     An unbroken series of natural events, following an orderly course
+     of evolution according to fixed laws, now leads the reflecting
+     human spirit through long aeons from a primeval chaos to the
+     present order of the cosmos.
+
+Finally, at the back of all these processes, we are to recognize the one
+ultimate reality, the universe itself, which originates and undergoes
+all these evolutions. In its regard Professor Haeckel tells us[17] that,
+
+     The universe, or cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. Its
+     substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy) fills
+     infinite space and is in eternal motion. This motion runs on
+     through infinite time as an unbroken development, with a periodic
+     change from life to death, from evolution to devolution....
+
+And again:[18]
+
+     The two fundamental forms of substances, ponderable matter and
+     ether, are not dead and moved only by extrinsic force, but they are
+     endowed also with sensation and will (though naturally of the
+     lowest grade); they experience an inclination for condensation, a
+     dislike of strain; they strive after the one and struggle against
+     the other.
+
+Moreover,
+
+     Movement[19] is as innate and original a property of substances as
+     is sensation.
+
+Such is the raw material whose metamorphoses produce, or rather
+constitute, all possible worlds, while paramount over every thing
+dominates the "Law of Substance," under which title Professor Haeckel
+unites the scientific principles of the indestructibility of matter,
+and the conservation of energy. Thus is the conclusion reached,[20]
+
+     Towering above all the achievements and discoveries of the century
+     we have the great comprehensive "law of substance," the fundamental
+     law of the constancy of matter and force. The fact that substance
+     is everywhere subject to eternal movement and transformation gives
+     it the character also of the universal law of evolution. As this
+     supreme law has been firmly established and all others are
+     subordinate to it, we arrive at a conviction of the universal unity
+     of nature and the eternal validity of its laws.
+
+Accordingly we are to conclude with Goethe that all proceeds by iron law
+to the fulfilling of inevitable destiny; or as an ardent disciple
+proclaims, who undertakes to expound the new creed to the people,[21]
+
+     We rest in sure and certain hope that no force and no combination
+     of forces can stop the process of Evolution, which from a speck of
+     jelly has developed such living forms as Charles Darwin and Herbert
+     Spencer, and which has produced the beauty of the earth and the
+     heavens from formless ether.
+
+This outline of the Evolutionary system in its widest and fullest sense
+will enable us to judge upon what grounds it can claim the sanction of
+Science. Various points here present themselves for consideration, which
+demand separate treatment.
+
+
+
+
+V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+
+As we have seen, the doctrine of Evolution is presented by its advocates
+as being based upon the existence of a "Law of Evolution," or "Law of
+Substance," which both brings about evolutionary processes, and
+certifies us of their occurrence, so that we may appeal to it as an
+authority for our belief in the facts of evolution themselves. Thus as
+Professor Milnes Marshall told the British Association,[22]
+
+     The doctrine of descent, or of evolution, teaches us that as
+     individual animals arise, not spontaneously, but by direct descent
+     from pre-existing animals, so also is it with species, with
+     families, and with larger groups of animals, and so also has it
+     been for all time.
+
+It is not said, be it observed, that the establishment of such facts
+teaches us the doctrine of evolution, but that the doctrine assures us
+of the facts; and the utterances constantly met with, of which the above
+is a fair sample, have no signification if they do not mean this. In
+the same way Professor Haeckel declares[23] that his fundamental cosmic
+law "establishes" the eternal persistence of matter and force, and their
+unvarying constancy throughout the entire universe, becoming thus "the
+pole-star that guides our Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth to a
+solution of the world problem," and the key to this supreme problem, he
+further tells us,[24] is found in one magic word--Evolution.
+
+It would certainly appear from all this, that by "Evolution" we are to
+understand some sort of entity at the back of the world, with power at
+its disposal capable of effecting all its operations,--something in fact
+remarkably like the First Cause of which we are in search,--and that by
+its "Laws" are signified some definite forces, the practical action of
+which has been ascertained by us, so that we can foretell the course of
+events under them, as we can that of the planets or the tides under the
+influence of gravitation.
+
+But is it scientific, or even intelligible, to use words thus, and to
+assign any such significance to such terms as "Law of Evolution," "Law
+of Substance," or any other "Law of Nature"? We are repeatedly warned to
+the contrary by so high an authority as Professor Huxley. Once, for
+instance, he discovered in a sermon of Canon Liddon's this "fallacious
+employment of the name of a scientific conception," for which it was
+however added, the preacher "could find only too many scientific
+precedents."[25] This fallacious use of terms, which nowise differs from
+that under consideration, Professor Huxley thus denounces:
+
+     It is the use of the word "law" as if it denoted a thing--as if a
+     "law of nature," as science understands it, were a being endowed
+     with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by
+     that law are brought about.... All I wish to remark is that such a
+     conception of the nature of "laws" has nothing to do with modern
+     science.... A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the
+     product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
+     under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind
+     than colour has. The law of gravitation is a statement of the
+     manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to
+     move, do, in fact, move towards one another.... The tenacity of the
+     wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of
+     being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which
+     we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our
+     anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting
+     psychological fact: and would be unintelligible if the tendency of
+     the human mind towards realism were less strong.
+
+A law, accordingly, "is not a cause but a fact,"[26] and we must learn
+laws from facts, not facts from laws. It is indeed evident on a
+moment's thought, that to speak of the Law of Evolution as causing
+things to be evolved, is like saying that the law of growth makes things
+grow. Till we know what happens, there is nothing of which Science can
+take account.
+
+     True scientific teaching, I cannot too often repeat [says Professor
+     Tait][27] requires that the facts, and their _necessary_
+     consequences alone, should be stated, as simply as possible.
+
+In like manner Professor Huxley,[28] undertaking to vindicate full
+scientific value for his own favourite Biology, does so by pointing out
+that biological methods are similar to those of every other branch of
+Science, since they begin with the observation of facts, and from this
+proceed to various applications of the knowledge so acquired. And
+Professor Haeckel himself tells us regarding his own mode of
+procedure:[29]
+
+     The means and methods we have chosen for attaining the solution of
+     the great enigma do not differ, on the whole, from those of all
+     purely scientific investigation: firstly, experience; secondly,
+     inference.
+
+Therefore, although the phrases we have already heard from him, are
+found when scrutinized to be only phrases, which explain nothing, it
+may be supposed that he elsewhere produces such proofs of his doctrine
+as will place it on a scientific basis. For these we will now seek.
+
+
+
+
+VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+
+We have just been told by Professor Haeckel, that the means and methods
+which he has chosen for the establishment of his philosophy are, on the
+whole, identical with those employed in all purely scientific
+investigation, namely, first experience, and secondly inference.
+
+But here a grave difficulty at once presents itself. How, either by
+experience or by inference, can we learn anything about the
+commencements of the universe, as to which we have heard so much? How
+the first bodies, whether organic or inorganic, actually arose, neither
+philosophy nor science can definitely say, for the latter was not there
+to see, and the former has no facts on which to argue.[30] But if
+neither by observation, nor by clear inference, can the account that has
+been given be substantiated, that account cannot pretend to be
+scientific, for it rests not upon knowledge but upon speculation,--and
+as Professor Tait warns us,[31] "That of which there is no knowledge is
+not yet part of Science."
+
+This plain consideration seems to account for a fact which is
+undoubtedly highly significant. Professor Huxley had certainly no
+prejudices against evolutionary systems, could they but be
+satisfactorily established. He knew all that Professor Haeckel has urged
+on behalf of his own theory, and showed how much he was in sympathy with
+it by naming after his friend the ill-starred _Bathybius Haeckelii_, the
+deep-sea slime which was at first supposed to bridge the gulf between
+the organic and the inorganic worlds, and to be living stuff in process
+of spontaneous manufacture. Nothing, in fact, as he himself admitted, in
+his controversy with Dr. Bastian, could have suited him better than a
+demonstration that Nature possesses all the powers necessary for her own
+processes, and that the explanation of all is within the scope of
+Science. But, at the same time, he reverenced scientific truth beyond
+anything else, and he was keenly sensible of the danger attending the
+use of hypothetical explanations, leading to conclusions which cannot be
+experimentally tested, which danger he carefully shunned.[32]
+Accordingly, not only did he never lend his countenance to what
+Professor Haeckel represents as the inevitable conclusions of Science,
+but he even plainly intimated that those who advanced such views were
+going much farther than Science warrants. The doctrine of Evolution, he
+declared,[33] is not only attacked on false grounds by its enemies, but
+is made by some of its friends to cover so much which is disputable, as
+to force him in self-defence to make his own position clear in its
+regard. And the first point of his explanation is to repudiate the idea
+that we have any such knowledge as Professor Haeckel assumes. "I have
+nothing to say," he writes, "to any 'Philosophy of Evolution.'"
+
+Being thus necessarily destitute of support either directly from
+observation or by inference from observed facts, it would seem that only
+in one way can Professor Haeckel's system of cosmogony, or
+world-production, obtain any support from Science. If amongst the
+operations now in progress in the universe, is to be found evidence of
+an exhaustless and self-renewing energy, a mainspring capable of keeping
+the machine going everlastingly, then undoubtedly there will be an
+explanation forthcoming, which, whatever difficulties may still remain
+on other grounds, will at least furnish a complete mechanical account of
+things within the ken of Science. May we not suppose that this is what
+is claimed as being supplied by the "Law of Substance," which is
+represented as the cornerstone of the whole edifice, the supreme triumph
+of scientific discovery, and, in fine, "the universal law of
+evolution"? Let us see how far such a notion can be styled scientific.
+
+As has been shown, a "Law" is nothing but a statement that a certain
+kind of fact is found to occur in certain circumstances. Professor
+Haeckel has told us that the "Law of Substance" is a blend of two such
+statements, namely, "the Law of the persistency or indestructibility of
+matter," which signifies that in no instance within our knowledge is any
+particle of matter destroyed, and "the Law of the persistence of force,
+or conservation of energy," which signifies that the sum of force, at
+work in the world, and producing all phenomena, is similarly found to be
+unalterable.[34]
+
+It must here first be observed that the term "Conservation of Energy,"
+is more correct and intelligible than "Conservation of Force"; by
+"Energy" being understood the power of doing "work," that is to say, of
+overcoming resistance.[35]
+
+It is in this form alone that Force becomes subject to observation and
+can be measured by Science, and the Law of Conservation which
+observation reveals is thus stated: The sum of all the various energies
+in the universe is a constant quantity, which can be neither increased
+nor diminished, though it may be changed from one form to another;[36]
+such forms being motion, heat, chemical action, electricity, magnetism.
+
+But another point is of far greater importance. The mode in which
+Professor Haeckel states this fundamental Law is altogether deceptive.
+He tells his readers only half the truth, and when the other half is
+told, not only is his whole doctrine found to receive no support from
+the Laws of Energy, but it is these very Laws which appear most
+incompatible with it.
+
+For, along with the Law of the Conservation, there is another, of the
+Dissipation of Energy. It is perfectly true, as Professor Haeckel often
+repeats, that the sum of Energy existing in the universe remains ever
+the same: but it is no less certain, as he unfortunately fails to remind
+his readers, that the stock of Energy _available for the work of the
+universe_ is growing less every day. Though none is ever destroyed, much
+is constantly _lost_, being dissipated, or radiated into space, in the
+form of heat which can never be recaptured or translated into any form
+which can be of any practical avail. "It is lost for ever as far as we
+are concerned."[37]
+
+From what we have heard concerning the Law of Substance it might
+naturally be supposed that it certified us of the continued existence of
+the power required to carry on the operations of Nature, and that,
+accordingly, reason bids us to suppose these operations to be
+everlasting. But this neglected element of the reckoning, or _Entropy_
+as it is styled, leads scientific men to an entirely different estimate.
+Thus Professor Balfour Stewart writes:[38]
+
+     Although, therefore, in a strictly mechanical sense, there is a
+     conservation of energy, yet, as regards usefulness or fitness for
+     living beings, the energy of the universe is in process of
+     deterioration. Universally diffused heat forms what we may call the
+     great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger year
+     by year.
+
+     We have [he continues] regarded the universe, not as a collection
+     of matter, but rather as an energetic agent--in fact, as a lamp.
+     Now it has been well pointed out by Thomson,[39] that looked at in
+     this light, the universe is a system that had a beginning and must
+     have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we
+     could view the universe as a candle not lit, then it is perhaps
+     conceivable to regard it as having been always in existence; but if
+     we regard it rather as a candle that has been lit, we become
+     absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity,
+     and that a time will come when it will cease to burn. We are led to
+     look to a beginning in which the particles of matter were in a
+     diffuse chaotic state, but endowed with the power of gravitation,
+     and we are led to look to an end in which the whole universe will
+     be one equally heated inert mass, from which everything like life
+     or motion or beauty will have utterly gone away.
+
+It is doubtless true that attempts have been made to show that this
+conclusion is not final, and that there may be resources whereby Nature
+is able to recoup herself, and to draw upon some bank unknown to us for
+her missing store. As we have seen, Professor Haeckel simply takes for
+granted that some such means of recuperation exist and operate, and he
+is not wholly without countenance from others. Thus, no less an
+authority than Sir William Crookes addressing the Chemical Society as
+its president, thus expressed himself:[40]
+
+     If we may hazard any conjectures ... we may I think premise that
+     the heat radiations propagated outwards, ... by some process of
+     nature unknown to us, are transformed at the confines of the
+     universe into the primary--the essential--motion of chemical atoms,
+     which the instant they are formed, gravitate inwards, and thus
+     restore to the universe the energy which would be lost to it
+     through radiant heat. Hence Sir William Thomson's startling
+     prediction falls to the ground.
+
+But it need not be pointed out that if an advocate so eminent as Sir
+William Crookes is reduced to pleas like this on its behalf, the case
+for Renovation of Energy must be singularly destitute of anything
+resembling scientific support. Suppositions which are avowedly hazarded
+as conjectures, and which must appeal to processes of Nature of which we
+know nothing, whatever authorship they may boast, have nothing to do
+with Science, and possess no sort of value for our purpose.[41] It must
+of course be allowed that we may still be utterly in the dark as to the
+whole of this question, and that further discoveries may one day
+completely upset all our present notions. But we are concerned with the
+evidence which Science has now before her, and with the assertion so
+confidently advanced that this makes the Law of ceaseless Evolution an
+indisputable truth. We find, on the contrary, that this Law runs
+directly counter to the facts as they are at present known to us, and to
+the conclusions drawn from them by the most authoritative
+representatives of science.
+
+Nor is it only our own globe and solar system that appear to be thus
+bound towards an inevitable doom. The eternal rhythm of life and death,
+of which we have been told as pervading the endless depths of space,
+has no better title to scientific sanction. Like the minor province
+which we inhabit, the whole universe, we are assured,--so far as we have
+means of calculating,--must ultimately arrive at a condition of eternal
+stagnation,--its component parts being drawn close together by their
+mutual attractions,--so that motion ceases; while the heat replacing it
+being equally diffused, becomes as incapable of doing work as water
+between two pools on the same level is of turning a mill. As the writer
+lately quoted sums up the matter:[42]
+
+     Slow as the process of condensation is, it is not endless. In time
+     all the meteoric dust will be collected into stars or planets; and
+     in time the law of dissipation of energy will bring all these
+     bodies to a uniform temperature. So at last the movements due to
+     the original unequal distribution of matter will cease, and the
+     life of the universe will come to an end. We know of no process of
+     rejuvenescence, by means of which dissipation of energy and the
+     force of gravitation might be counteracted. Several attempts have
+     been made to refute the theory of the dissipation of energy, but
+     all have failed.
+
+This, however, is but the first of many difficulties which must be
+disposed of ere the account of the world's genesis which we are
+considering can pretend to our acceptance on the ground that reason and
+science proclaim its truth.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+
+The doctrine that the universe is an automatic machine,--self-originated
+and self-sustained--undoubtedly rests upon a principle formally
+recognized by some evolutionists, as the "Law of Continuity," and taken
+for granted by many who do not put it into words. This principle
+is,--that everything must always have happened according to the same
+laws of Nature which operate now; that there can never have been a
+"miracle," understanding by this term whatever is beyond the scope of
+natural forces; and that, accordingly, the whole of the world's
+history,--one stage as much as another,--falls within the province of
+Science. By no one has this position been more clearly stated than by
+the late Professor Romanes.
+
+     All minds [he tells us][43] with any instincts of science in their
+     composition have grown to distrust, on merely antecedent grounds,
+     any explanation which embodies a miraculous element. Such minds
+     have grown to regard all these explanations as mere expressions of
+     our own ignorance of natural causation; or, in other words, they
+     have come to regard it as an _� priori_ truth that nature is always
+     uniform in respect of method or causation; that the reign of law is
+     universal; the principle of continuity ubiquitous.
+
+He goes on to declare that "The fact of evolution--or, which is the same
+thing, the fact of continuity in natural causation--has now been
+undoubtedly proved in many departments of nature," and that, in
+particular, "throughout the range of inorganic nature" it is "a
+demonstrated fact."
+
+If this be so, it must necessarily follow that the Laws of Nature, as
+Science finds them operating, sufficiently explain not only all that
+happens in our present world, but also all that must have happened while
+this world was being produced. According to what has already been said,
+by "The Law of Continuity" no more can be signified than that Continuity
+is a fact, that the world has actually come to be what it is through the
+continual operation of just the same natural forces as we find at work
+to-day. That things _did_ so happen we have not and cannot have, direct
+evidence; for no witness was there to report. We can but draw inferences
+from the present to the past, and argue that what Nature does to-day,
+she must have been capable of doing yesterday and the day before. Only
+thus can continuity of natural laws possibly be established. It would
+obviously be vain to argue that we must suppose no other forces ever to
+have acted than those we can observe, because, for all we know, other
+conditions may so have altered as to make their results altogether
+different from any of which we have experience.
+
+It is likewise manifest that if we are to speak of demonstrated facts,
+and of conclusions placed beyond rational possibility of doubt, proofs
+must be forthcoming sufficient to compel scientific assent.
+
+And here lies the difficulty. Very much must unquestionably have
+happened in the course of the world's making for which the Laws of
+Nature as we find them now acting cannot account, and which, therefore,
+Science cannot attempt to explain. So we are assured by eminent
+scientific men,--men, too, who desire nothing more than to find an
+explanation, but are driven, in search of one, as we have already seen
+Sir W. Crookes, to plead the limitation of our knowledge, and that there
+may be capabilities in Nature of which we are ignorant. But it remains
+always true, that what we do not know is not yet part of Science, and
+that if our scientific information, so far as it goes, is adverse to the
+Law of Continuity, it is quite unscientific to bring arguments for the
+law not from our knowledge, but from our lack of it. Still more
+unscientific is it to proclaim that Science has pronounced judgment in a
+sense contrary to that of all the evidence hitherto presented to her.
+
+Amongst the men of Science who testify as above, we may begin with Herr
+Du Bois-Reymond, an avowed Evolutionist and Materialist, whom Professor
+Haeckel styles, "the all-powerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin
+Academy of Sciences."[44] He can be suspected of no prejudices which
+would prevent him from accepting Professor Haeckel's cosmogony, if only
+he found the evidence satisfactory. Far from this, however, he
+declares,[45] that the history of the universe confronts us with no less
+than seven problems, for which Science has no solution to offer, and
+some of which he holds to be for ever insoluble. These he styles
+"Enigmas," and they are:
+
+(1) The nature of Matter and of Force.
+
+(2) The origin of Motion.
+
+(3) The origin of Life.
+
+(4) The apparently designed order of Nature.
+
+(5) The origin of sensation and consciousness.
+
+(6) The origin of rational thought and speech.
+
+(7) Free-will.
+
+The first, second, and fifth of these are in the opinion of Du
+Bois-Reymond "transcendental," or beyond possibility of solution. The
+others, in his judgment, have certainly not yet been solved, but
+_perhaps_ may be solved some day. As to the last, he much doubts whether
+it should not also be classed as "transcendental."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It thus appears that in the judgment of a competent witness, and one
+no-wise biassed by preconception or prejudice, so far from it being
+true that Professor Haeckel's story of the universe is imperiously
+imposed on us by the results of Science, not one but several great gulfs
+in the course of that history must have been bridged over somehow, which
+Science confesses she cannot bridge, so far as her present knowledge
+goes, that is to say, so far as she is Science at all.
+
+Professor Haeckel, it is true, loudly pronounces Du Bois-Reymond's
+declaration to be mere "dogmatism"[46] of a "shallow and illogical
+character," and he undertakes to show that with the help of his own
+philosophy the enigmas cease to be enigmatical.
+
+     In my opinion [he writes] the three transcendental problems (1, 2
+     and 5) are settled by our conception of substance; the three which
+     he [Du Bois-Reymond] considers difficult, though soluble[47] (3, 4
+     and 6) are decisively answered by our modern theory of evolution;
+     the seventh and last, the freedom of the will, is not an object for
+     critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+     on an illusion, and has no real existence.
+
+How far such a mode of rebuking dogmatism appears convincing, must of
+course depend on what the reader understands by an argument. Some points
+already considered may help us to a right estimate of proofs which are
+based upon "Our conception of substance," or "Our modern theory of
+evolution," and we shall presently inspect more closely the nature of
+the difficulties which we are invited so summarily to dismiss.
+Meanwhile, even though not final or conclusive, the testimony of such a
+man as Du Bois-Reymond serves at least to prove that it is possible to
+be thoroughly familiar with Science and her teaching, and yet to believe
+that as yet she knows nothing at all concerning questions which, as we
+have been assured, she has conclusively answered. And, as we shall
+presently see, if Professor Haeckel's account of things be the true one,
+there are many more scientific men of the first rank who are equally in
+the dark.
+
+In a word, while according to Professor Haeckel there is in the universe
+but one Riddle, which he tells us he has solved,--in the opinion of
+another who is certainly no less entitled to speak in the name of
+Science, there yet remain seven to which no answer has yet been given,
+and to three, at least, of which none will ever be found.
+
+
+
+
+VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+
+In the forefront of the problems which have been pronounced to be not
+only unsolved but insoluble, are the nature and origin of the ultimate
+factors arrived at by Science in her study of the constitution of the
+universe,--Matter, Force, and Motion.
+
+With the first and last of these alone need we at present concern
+ourselves, for "Force," as Science knows it, is always associated with
+Matter, and signifies no more in her terminology than that which
+produces, or tends to produce Motion. On the other hand, we are
+told,[48] that "The contents of the material universe may be expressed
+in terms of Matter and Motion."
+
+By "Matter" is understood "Sensible Substance," the stuff composing all
+of which our senses tell us, and which forms the object of Scientific
+investigation. What do we know concerning this raw material whereof
+worlds are made?
+
+As we have seen, Professor Haeckel and his school are ready to tell us.
+Matter, we are assured,[49] is self-existent and imperishable, "it has
+no beginning and no end; it is eternity." Together with Ether, it
+occupies infinite and boundless space. It is in ceaseless motion; and
+its interminable modifications produce everything that ever was or ever
+will be. Movement[50] is one of the "innate and original properties" of
+Matter. So are Sensation and Will,[51] but these, we are warned,[52] are
+"unconscious."
+
+Obviously, however, it is not enough that these things should be said,
+they require likewise to be proved; and the question must immediately
+suggest itself, Whence is proof to come? Not, by any possibility, from
+observation and experiment. For who can speak, of his own knowledge, to
+eternity or infinity? The only conceivable supposition is that Science
+has so thoroughly mastered the nature and properties of Matter here and
+now, as to be furnished with evidence unmistakably pointing to the above
+conclusions. Thus alone can she be quoted on their behalf; and it must
+always be remembered that the philosophy which we are examining is
+nothing if not scientific.
+
+But, in the first place, is it quite clear of what our philosophers are
+speaking? They use the term "Matter" as though it represented some one
+definite thing: but this is very far from being the case.
+
+     We must remember [says Lord Grimthorpe][53] that matter is not an
+     unit, as a creator is, and that talking of it so is merely a
+     rhetorical artifice when used in philosophical inquiries.... Matter
+     is nothing but the sum of all the ultimate particles or atoms
+     contained in the universe, or in any particular mass that we are
+     dealing with.... A very large proportion of the atoms of the
+     universe have never been within millions and billions of miles of
+     each other.
+
+Therefore, he goes on to urge, the doctrine of the self-existence of
+Matter, must mean that each several atom is self-existent, or "every
+atom its own god." How comes it then that they all obey the same "Laws"?
+How have their various provinces been allotted? Above all, how are they
+not all the same, but--so far as we know--divided into classes widely
+different from one another? For, according to our present
+knowledge,--and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves that upon this
+alone can any sound conclusion be based,--there are, in round numbers,
+some seventy different species of atoms, whose diverse qualities are
+absolutely necessary for the production of the world. Had all atoms been
+of one kind, we could have had none even of what used to be called the
+Four Elements,--neither Earth, Air, Fire, nor Water.
+
+But,--apart from this,--What is known concerning this same "Matter"? Has
+Science so thoroughly fathomed its constitution as to be able to
+declare that it possesses all the properties we have heard assigned to
+it,--Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may
+be,--locomotive power,--eternity,--and, in its collective capacity,
+immensity?
+
+So far from this being the case, scientific men who were most willing,
+and even anxious, to assign to Matter a foremost, if not _the_ foremost,
+place in Nature, have done so precisely upon the ground, not of our
+knowledge, but of our ignorance. No better examples need be sought than
+Professor Huxley, and Professor Tyndall, who alike agreed, in the words
+of the latter,[54] "to discern in Matter the promise and potency of
+every form and quality of life." But Huxley took his stand on the
+declaration, that we know so little about Matter as to make it
+impossible to say of what it may not be capable, for we cannot so much
+as be certain of its existence, and use the term only "for the unknown
+and hypothetical causes of our own states of consciousness,"[55] while
+Tyndall described the process, whereby the promise and potency are
+realized, as "the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to the
+intellect of man."
+
+Speculations thus founded upon the absence of evidence, whatever else
+they may be, are certainly no part of Science; and when we turn to what,
+being established by scientific methods, is a possible basis of
+scientific argument, we find that in every instance it contradicts
+instead of supporting the assertions we have heard.
+
+To begin with the question of Motion, as being both of supreme
+importance, and one more open than some others to observation and
+experiment. According to Professor Haeckel's teaching, "movement is an
+innate and original property of substance," that is to say of Matter,
+and in consequence, "Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted
+movement and transformation." It is by thus attributing to matter an
+inherent determination to move that he meets Du Bois-Reymond's
+difficulty as to the origin of motion.
+
+But this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's Laws, which
+are universally recognized as the most firmly established and
+unquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us that a
+body at rest will continue at rest for ever, unless compelled by some
+force to move; just as a body in motion will continue to move at the
+same rate and in the same direction, unless compelled by force to arrest
+or alter its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole
+of our Natural Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for
+the idea that Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is
+thus quite unscientific. Not self-movement but _Inertia_ is the property
+which Science ascribes to Matter.[56] It may further be observed that
+the idea of inherent motion is absurd and unintelligible; for movement
+cannot be in more than one direction at a time: so that a mass, or an
+atom, of Matter could tend to move only by having an intrinsic impulse
+in a straight line towards some one particular point. If it should tend
+to move indifferently, in all directions at once, it would remain
+motionless, each such tendency being neutralized by its opposite.
+
+As to the further claim made on behalf of Matter to be endowed with
+Sensation and Will, of any description, it must be enough to say that no
+one has ever pretended to find any evidence whatever to this effect, or
+to detect the faintest trace of such properties;--and that on the
+contrary, all experience shows inorganic Matter, (that is, Matter not
+incorporated in living animals or plants,) to be utterly lifeless and
+inert. It is a mere abuse and perversion of terms to speak of Science as
+countenancing any conclusion but that to which such experience points.
+The attempt to invest Matter with these attributes Professor Tait
+stigmatizes as "non-science," or "pseudo-science."[57]
+
+     The Pygmalions of modern days [he writes] do not require to beseech
+     Aphrodit� to animate the ivory for them. Like the savage with his
+     _Totem_, they have themselves already attributed life to it.... The
+     latest phase of this peculiar non-science tells us that all Matter
+     is _alive_; or at least that it contains "the promise and potency"
+     (whatever these may be) "of all terrestrial life." ... So much for
+     the attempts to introduce into Science an element altogether
+     incompatible with the fundamental conditions of its existence.
+
+In fine, to make us realize not merely how extremely narrow are the
+bounds of our knowledge, but even how much narrower they may be than we
+suppose, there enters upon the scene Radium, like the golden apple that
+came to disturb the harmony of the celestials. What lessons this
+turbulent and unconventional element will ultimately be found to teach,
+and how far it will revolutionize the laws of Nature as hitherto
+accepted, remains, of course, to be seen: but this at least is clear. In
+presence of it, scientific men find that they are sure of nothing they
+thought most certain, not of the indestructibility of matter itself, on
+which is based that Law of Substance which we have seen made responsible
+for so much.
+
+It had been thought that whatever else might change or perish the atoms
+of which we have heard, as the ultimate constituents of Matter, were
+beyond the reach of any vicissitude. "No man," said Dalton, their
+discoverer, "can split an atom." Thus too Mr. Clodd, while acknowledging
+that the constitution even of atoms may some day be found to be liable
+to disorder and decay, clearly teaches that, as a practical certainty,
+we have in them got to something final. Taking one particular kind, an
+oxygen atom, as a text, he thus discourses:[58]
+
+     It matters not into how many myriad substances--animal, plant, or
+     mineral--an atom of oxygen may have entered, nor what isolation it
+     has undergone: bond or free, it retains its own qualities. It
+     matters not how many millions of years have elapsed during these
+     changes, age cannot wither or weaken it; amidst all the fierce play
+     of the mighty agencies to which it has been subjected it remains
+     unbroken and unworn; to it we may apply the ancient words, "the
+     things which are not seen are eternal."
+
+But now, with the recognition of radio-activity, and the disintegration
+of atoms into their constituent "electrons" which this is held to
+evidence, we have changed all that. Such disintegration, it is affirmed,
+must imply dissolution and death, alike of the atoms themselves and of
+the universe which they compose. As Sir William Crookes told the
+physicists assembled at Berlin, June, 1903:
+
+     This fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal,
+     and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk; it works
+     in the sunshine and raindrops, in lightnings and flame; it prevails
+     in the waterfall and the stormy sea.
+
+Matter he consequently regards as doomed to destruction.[59] Sooner or
+later, it will have dissolved into the "formless mist" of "prothyle"[60]
+and "the hour-hand of eternity will have completed one revolution."
+
+Consequently, we are told,[61]
+
+     The "dissipation of energy" has found its correlative in the
+     "dissolution of matter." We are confronted with an appalling sense
+     of desolation--of quasi-annihilation.
+
+It is no doubt true, here again, that such judgments cannot be called
+final, and that not all scientific men will accept them as they stand.
+But all alike are forced to agree that our previous notions are
+completely upset, and that we are compelled to recognize the fact that
+of these fundamental questions we know far less than the little we
+seemed to know. What, then, is to be thought of Professor Haeckel's
+confident utterances, which could be justified only on the supposition
+that we know everything? And what becomes of the famous Law of
+Substance, if both its parts are found thus to contradict the conclusion
+he would draw from it?
+
+The case is thus summed up by the writer of the article just cited:
+
+     The discovery of radio-activity is one of the most momentous in the
+     history of science. "There has been a vivid new start" (we again
+     borrow Sir William Crookes' expression). "Our physicists have
+     remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter." The
+     remodelling indeed has hardly commenced.... What is undeniable is
+     that the Daltonian atom has, within a century of its acceptance as
+     a fundamental reality, suffered disruption. Its proper place in
+     nature is not that formerly assigned to it, ... its reputation for
+     inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever. Each of these
+     supposed "ultimates" is now known to be the scene of indescribable
+     activities, a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of
+     parts, a star-cluster in miniature, subject to all kinds of
+     dynamical vicissitudes, to perturbation, acceleration, internal
+     friction, total or partial disruption. And to each is appointed a
+     fixed term of existence. Sooner or later, the balance of
+     equilibrium is tilted, disturbance eventuates in overthrow; the
+     tiny exquisite system finally breaks up. Of atoms, as of men, it
+     may be said with truth, "_Quisque suos patitur manes_."
+
+"Here," in fact, "we meet the impenetrable secret of creative
+agency."[62]
+
+
+
+
+IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+
+The question concerning the origin and nature of Life is of supreme and
+vital importance not only for those who speak of Evolution as a force or
+principle by which everything is guided and governed, but also for such
+as understand by the term no more than a process which they say has
+actually occurred. Evolutionists of this second class disclaim, with
+Huxley, any "philosophy of Evolution." They are content to take the
+world as a going concern, at the farthest point in the past to which,
+even speculatively, Science can trace it, as that vast primordial nebula
+of which we have heard.[63] Given this,--assuming the existence of such
+a nebula, constituted as they suppose,--they believe that the whole
+subsequent history of the world is fully explained by the uniform action
+of the same laws of matter which we find in operation to-day. Not only
+is the establishment of our Solar System, of sun and planets, to be
+thus accounted for, but likewise the production of life, of the organic
+world of plants and animals.
+
+Hence it necessarily follows that life must originally have been evolved
+naturally from lifeless matter, for all are agreed that not only in the
+nebula, but on the earth when it first started its independent career,
+life did not, and could not, exist.
+
+     There has been [says Virchow][64] a beginning of life, since
+     geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life
+     was impossible, and when no vestige of it is to be found.
+
+     If the evolution hypothesis is true, [says Huxley][65] living
+     matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the
+     hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that
+     living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely
+     incompatible with the gaseous state.
+
+     There was a time [says Tyndall][66] when the earth was a red-hot
+     molten globe, on which no life could exist.
+
+Accordingly, as Professor Huxley acknowledges, spontaneous generation is
+an evolutionary necessity. Unless such generation can be shown to have
+taken place, or at the very least unless it can be shown to be naturally
+possible, the theory which requires it cannot be an established truth.
+But it is precisely as a scientifically established truth that the
+doctrine of Evolution is presented to us, so firmly established indeed
+that we are warned "to doubt it is to doubt science."[67] It presents
+itself, moreover, as the most precious result of modern research, the
+appearance of which is as a sunrise illuminating the field of
+knowledge.[68]
+
+This being so, and it being the first principle of Science that we
+should take nothing on faith and accept only what can be proved, it is
+our plain duty to satisfy ourselves, as scientific methods alone can
+rightly satisfy us, that a doctrine of such paramount importance is
+entitled to demand our acceptance.
+
+What methods can claim to be scientific, all are agreed. Advances in
+science, Professor Tait warns us,[69]
+
+     come or not, as we remember or forget that our Science is to be
+     based entirely upon experiment, or mathematical deduction from
+     experiment.
+
+     Men of science [says Tyndall] prolong the method of nature from the
+     present into the past. The observed uniformity of nature is their
+     only guide.[70]
+
+     The man of science [says Huxley] has learned to believe in
+     justification, not by faith, but by verification.[71]
+
+In this manner must we test the Evolution theory, and spontaneous
+generation as an essential element thereof. We will begin with
+Professor Huxley's statement of what he styles "the fundamental
+proposition of Evolution."[72]
+
+     That proposition is [he writes] that the whole world, living and
+     not-living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to
+     definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which
+     the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be
+     true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay,
+     potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient
+     intelligence could, from a knowledge of that vapour, have
+     predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869[73] with
+     as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the breath in
+     a cold winter's day.
+
+That is to say, the supposed nebula was a vast piece of mechanism, of
+unimaginable complexity, the component parts of which under the
+influence of such forces as gravitation, heat, chemical affinity,
+electricity and magnetism, have produced everything that has since
+appeared on earth, vegetable and animal life amongst the rest. How are
+we to assure ourselves that such was really the case?
+
+Professor Tyndall has told us that the only scientific method is to
+prolong the method of nature from the present into the past, taking her
+observed uniformity for our only guide, and in like manner we have heard
+it laid down by Professor Romanes, that we must assume as a first
+principle that the laws of nature are always and everywhere the same,
+and that by their uniform operation everything is done. It is therefore
+quite clear that as no man was present when life first made its
+appearance, to observe and record whence it came, the only way in which
+we can possibly proceed, without violating every scientific canon, is to
+argue from what happens now, to what must have happened then,--to show
+that inorganic matter can in fact generate organic life, and to conclude
+that the same laws must have worked the same results in the past as they
+do in the present.
+
+But this is precisely what cannot be done, for one of the most
+conclusive results of modern research has been to show that in the
+present world spontaneous generation never occurs, that living things
+come only from living parents, and that from organic matter alone can
+the smallest particle of organic matter be derived. _Omne vivum e vivo,
+omnis cellula e cellula, omnis nucleus e nucleo._ Upon this point there
+is now complete agreement amongst scientific authorities, and what is
+most remarkable, none are more strenuous in upholding the doctrine of
+_Biogenesis_,[74] than some of those who with equal vehemence proclaim
+the doctrine of Evolution for which the occurrence of spontaneous
+generation is a necessity.
+
+Never, for example, were there Evolutionists more pronounced than
+Professors Huxley and Tyndall, and they both saw clearly that without
+spontaneous generation there could not have been evolution such as they
+maintained. Yet when the occurrence of spontaneous generation, here and
+now, was asserted by Bastian and Burdon Sanderson, they, following in
+the wake of Pasteur, repudiated the notion, and Tyndall in particular
+conclusively disproved the experiments by which it was supported.[75] As
+Huxley wrote to Charles Kingsley:[76]
+
+     I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of spontogenesis.
+     Against the doctrine of spontaneous generation in the abstract I
+     have nothing to say. Indeed it is a necessary corollary from
+     Darwin's views if legitimately carried out.
+
+A few years later, writing to Dr. Dohrn[77] upon the same subject, he
+made use of a phrase--which in his mouth expressed the uttermost limit
+of disbelief: "Transubstantiation will be nothing to this if it turns
+out true."
+
+In the same year as President of the British Association he chose for
+the subject of his inaugural address, "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis," and,
+after a careful examination of the case for each, pronounced the former
+"to be victorious all along the line."
+
+In spite of all this, however, he assured himself as an Evolutionist
+that spontaneous generation must once have been not only a possibility
+but a fact. In the same Presidential address, after piling up evidence
+against it--he thus continued:[78]
+
+     But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I
+     must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend
+     to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place
+     in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic
+     chemistry, molecular physics and physiology yet in their infancy,
+     and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the
+     height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under
+     which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some
+     day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in
+     affirming is that I see no reason for affirming that the feat has
+     been performed yet.
+
+     And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find
+     no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of
+     any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of
+     its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a
+     serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in
+     the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the
+     mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be
+     using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where
+     belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of
+     geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the
+     earth was passing through physical and dynamical conditions, which
+     it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I
+     should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm
+     from not living matter.... That is the expectation to which
+     analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect
+     that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of
+     philosophical faith.
+
+Here we have the whole state of the case put for us in a nutshell. On
+the one hand, all known facts are against the idea of spontaneous
+generation, and therefore, so far as she can at present go, the verdict
+of Science must condemn that supposition. But, on the other hand, the
+fundamental principle of Evolution cannot be justified unless
+spontaneous generation has taken place, and accordingly, although
+Evolution is the very thing which we should be engaged in establishing
+by the evidence of facts, it is held to be reasonable and scientific to
+infer that facts which we cannot verify must exist because they are
+wanted. It is admitted that the requisite evidence is lacking, and
+therefore we must not go so far as to express belief in the facts: but
+we may indulge in expectations,--which seem, however, to imply belief in
+the thing expected,--and meanwhile we may go on believing firmly in the
+Evolution theory itself, which includes belief in the missing facts.
+This, we are told, is "philosophical faith." But, to say nothing of what
+we have heard from others, Professor Huxley elsewhere[79] warns us
+against faith as the one unpardonable sin: and as we have heard him
+declare the man of science has learned to believe in justification, not
+by faith, but by verification.
+
+And as to the expectation which he avowed, there appears to be no slight
+force in the response of his adversary Dr. Bastian:[80]
+
+     What reason [he asks] does Professor Huxley give in explanation of
+     his supposition?... The only reason distinctly implied is because
+     the physical and chemical conditions of the earth's surface were
+     different in the past from what they are now. And yet, concerning
+     the exact nature of their differences, or the degree in which the
+     different sets of conditions would respectively favour the
+     occurrence or arrest of an evolution of living matter, Professor
+     Huxley cannot possess even the vaguest knowledge. He chooses to
+     assume that the unknown conditions existing in the past were more
+     favourable to _Archebiosis_ (life-evolution) than those now in
+     operation. This, however, is an assumption which may be entirely
+     opposed to the facts.
+
+It is thus hard to understand how Professor Huxley could profess to
+justify his expectations by verification, for that the above account of
+the matter is no-wise overstated we have his own acknowledgment:[81]
+
+     Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter,
+     it may be said that we know absolutely nothing.... Science has no
+     means to form an opinion on the commencement of life; we can only
+     make conjectures without any scientific value.
+
+Such a witness as Huxley might well suffice, but the question is so
+important as to make it advisable to call some others, though only a few
+amongst many who testify to the same effect.
+
+Like his friend and ally Huxley, Professor Tyndall believed that
+spontaneous generation had once occurred, and denied that it occurs now.
+As to the former article of his creed he was even more pronounced in his
+materialism. We have already heard him proclaim that in matter is to be
+discerned the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. He likewise
+inclined to believe that not only life but consciousness is immanent
+everywhere, in the vegetable and mineral no less than in the animal
+world,[82] and that not merely life and consciousness, but:
+
+     All our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our
+     art--Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael--are potential in the
+     fires of the sun.[83]
+
+Beliefs such as these might be thought to imply that the genesis of life
+is a simple affair, but Tyndall was no less convinced than Huxley that,
+as things are, it cannot be obtained without antecedent life on which
+to draw. Having described the experiments devised to test the matter, he
+thus concludes:[84]
+
+     Here, as in all other cases, the evidence in favour of spontaneous
+     generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer.
+
+At the same time, he was equally certain that life must have had an
+inorganic origin and that Science bids us so to believe. His various
+utterances are not, it is true, very easily reconciled. On the one hand
+he lays it down that "Without verification a theoretic conception is a
+mere figment of the intellect." On the other hand in his Belfast Address
+he thus expressed himself:
+
+     Believing, as I do, in the continuity of nature, I cannot stop
+     abruptly where our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision
+     of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By a
+     necessity engendered and justified by Science I cross the boundary
+     of the experimental evidence.... If you ask me whether there exists
+     the least evidence to prove that any form of life can be developed
+     out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life.... [men of
+     science] will frankly admit their inability to point to any
+     satisfactory experimental proof that life can be developed, save
+     from demonstrable antecedent life.
+
+Far, however, from being a mere figment, his mental vision is
+represented as the most unalloyed product of reason. He writes:[85]
+
+     Were not man's origin implicated, we should accept without a murmur
+     the derivation of animal and vegetable life from what we call
+     inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way
+     and no other.
+
+The conclusion of pure intellect, however, having nothing to show for
+itself in the way of evidence, we are again referred to a condition of
+things concerning which we know, and can know, nothing.
+
+     Supposing [writes the Professor][86] a planet carved from the sun,
+     set spinning round an axis, and revolving round the sun at a
+     distance from him equal to that of our earth, would one of the
+     consequences of its refrigeration be the development of organic
+     forms? I lean to the affirmative.
+
+It is no doubt interesting to know to what opinion the Professor
+inclined, but is this sort of thing Science?
+
+In the same manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, the philosopher of evolution
+_par excellence_, thus reports:[87]
+
+     Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world
+     no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of
+     non-living matter. They do not deny, however, that at a remote
+     period in the past, when the temperature of the surface of the
+     earth was much higher than at present, and other physical
+     conditions were _unlike those we know_,[88] inorganic matter,
+     through successive complications, gave origin to organic
+     matter.[89]
+
+Mr. Darwin himself, who is constantly supposed to have upheld, or even
+to have demonstrated, the fact of spontaneous generation, is amongst the
+strongest witnesses against it. He was indeed disposed to believe that
+the living will some day be found to be producible from the lifeless,
+the ground of his expectation being the "Law of Continuity,"[90] or the
+assumption that from the beginning of nature to the end one only kind of
+law uniformly operates, namely the same as we now experience. But this
+is to assume the whole question at issue, for unless it can be shewn
+that there has been spontaneous generation, we cannot be assured that
+there is such a Law of Continuity. And despite his expectation Darwin
+always denied that the origin of life has been--sometimes even that it
+can be--explained. Thus he wrote on various occasions:
+
+     It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one
+     might as well think of the origin of matter.[91]
+
+     As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and
+     though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will
+     be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the
+     confines of Science.[92]
+
+     No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced
+     in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic
+     matter.[93]
+
+Here we may conveniently pause and take stock of our results. On the one
+hand, we are bidden in the name of Science to learn the past from the
+present, and the present from observation and experiment alone. On the
+other, we are invited to believe in an occurrence which observation and
+experiment negative in the present, on the ground that the circumstances
+must once have been entirely different from any with which we are
+acquainted. Obviously, the real motive of belief is that na�vely
+expressed by Professor Haeckel, who tells us that spontaneous generation
+is proved by the doctrine of Evolution;[94] which then in its turn is
+proved by spontaneous generation.
+
+Two points must however be noticed in which it is attempted to find
+present evidence in favour of spontaneous generation.
+
+First, there is Protoplasm--the "Physical Basis of Life," or Living
+Matter, being that form of matter by which life is always accompanied.
+In this no chemical element unknown elsewhere, is to be found; the cells
+of which it consists are compounded of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and
+Carbon; and it has been argued, especially by Huxley, that it is
+therefore not different in kind from other compounds; that as Oxygen and
+Hydrogen form water, Oxygen and Carbon, Carbonic Acid, Hydrogen and
+Nitrogen, Ammonia,--so the four combined, in proper circumstances and
+proportions, make Living Matter, without the aid of any vital force or
+principle. And Haeckel with his habitual audacity foretells the
+artificial production of Protoplasm for purposes of commerce. But, as
+Mr. Stirling observes,[95] man has always known that he is made of dust,
+and that the only part of him perceptible to sense is substantially the
+same as the earth beneath his feet. All that he now learns in addition
+is that when such matter is wedded to life it undergoes marvellous
+transformations which in part at least we are able to recognize, but are
+wholly unable to comprehend. This Professor Huxley himself admits:
+
+
+     The properties of living matter [he writes][96] distinguish it
+     absolutely from all other kinds of things, and the present state of
+     knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the
+     not-living.
+
+Not only that: the subject is full of complexities of which Professor
+Huxley gives no hint, and which it would even seem he did not himself
+perceive. In his celebrated lecture on the Physical Basis of Life[97] he
+gives his hearers to understand that all Protoplasm is the same, that
+its particles are as the bricks with which any sort of edifice may be
+constructed, a cathedral or a gin-shop, a palace or a hovel. The
+protoplasm of a mushroom, for instance, he declares to be essentially
+identical with that of him who eats it, into which it is most readily
+convertible. He also speaks of the effect of eating mutton being to
+"transubstantiate sheep into man." But, positive as are these
+statements, they are far from representing scientific truths, and we are
+told by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer that he himself would not know what
+to do with a candidate who should advance such views in an
+examination.[98] As to the mushroom and the mutton, Sir William adds,
+that except the definition of a crab, as a red fish that runs backwards,
+attributed to the French Academy, he can call to mind no statement "so
+compact of error."
+
+In reality, instead of all Protoplasm being the same, the differences
+are infinite. Particles from different sources may be indistinguishable
+by the microscope or by any test that chemistry can apply, but this only
+increases the mystery of their nature, for each has its own functions
+and will perform no others. The Protoplasm of a plant will do what that
+of an animal, seemingly identical, cannot do. That of a fish will
+convert the same nutriment into quite a different formation from that of
+a man.
+
+     It is no doubt true that a particle of fungoid differs in no
+     appreciable physical respect from one of human protoplasm, yet the
+     former will never emerge from the fate of the humble mushroom,
+     while the other may be instinct with the thoughts of a Prime
+     Minister.[99]
+
+As Mr. Stirling sums up the matter:[100]
+
+     There is nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,
+     muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues, no one
+     of which but produces only its own kind, and is uninterchangeable
+     with the rest. Lastly, we have the overwhelming fact that there is
+     the infinitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely
+     different plants and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm,
+     as in the case of the various tissues, but produces its own kind,
+     and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest.
+
+It thus appears that the character of Protoplasm, far from making it
+easier to conceive the mechanical production of living things, does but
+immensely aggravate the difficulty. As Sir William Thiselton-Dyer avows:
+"I do not see even the beginning of a materialistic theory of
+protoplasm." And Haeckel's idea that we shall succeed in creating
+organic life does not commend itself to such an authority as Sir Henry
+Roscoe:
+
+     It is true [he says][101] that there are those who profess to
+     foresee that the day will arise when the chemist, by a succession
+     of constructive efforts may pass beyond albumen, and gather the
+     elements of lifeless matter into a living structure. Whatever may
+     be said of this from other standpoints, the chemist can only say
+     that at present no such problem lies within his province.
+     Protoplasm, with which the simplest manifestations of life are
+     associated, is not a compound, but a structure built up of
+     compounds. The chemist may successfully synthesize any of its
+     component compounds, but he has no more reason to look forward to
+     the synthetic production of the structure than to imagine that the
+     synthesis of gallic acid leads to the artificial production of
+     gall-nuts.
+
+And M. de Quatrefages thus sums up the conclusions at which he arrives
+from minute study of the lowest forms of life:[102]
+
+
+     I make bold to affirm that the deeper Science penetrates into the
+     secrets of organization and phenomena, the more does she
+     demonstrate how wide and how profound is the abyss which separates
+     brute matter from living things.
+
+The other point requiring notice is crystallization. Inorganic matter,
+as we know, can build up crystals, the wonderful structure of which
+results from the molecular properties of the substance crystallized. Why
+then, some would ask, may not matter in the same manner produce
+Protoplasm?
+
+But, in the first place, this, as we have heard, is what it is never
+found to do. Crystals we can produce at pleasure, in what quantity we
+will. But all efforts have not yet succeeded in obtaining the most
+minute speck of living matter. Moreover, nothing can be more widely
+different from organic structures than crystals. The latter are always
+mathematical, the former never: the latter grow by outside accretion, of
+the one kind of particles whereof they consist: the former by absorption
+and assimilation of various foreign substances: the latter are wholly
+independent of anything like an ancestor: for the former an ancestor is
+in our experience indispensable: crystals can be dissolved and
+recrystallized: living matter once destroyed can never be reconstituted.
+Above all, the particles incorporated in the crystal are absolutely
+quiescent, so far as any portion of matter can be said to be so, no more
+able to change their position without external force than the bricks in
+a wall, while those in living tissue at once become subject to "the
+whirlwind of life," involving constant change the cessation of which is
+death.
+
+     It is inexplicable to me [says M. de Quatrefages][103] that some
+     men whose merits I otherwise acknowledge, should have compared
+     crystals to the simplest living forms.... These forms are the
+     antipodes of the crystal from every point of view.
+
+To the same effect speaks Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin's associate in
+the discovery of the Darwinian theory. In a work expressly devoted to
+the vindication of that theory, Mr. Wallace declares that far from the
+way of evolution being made clear by Science from end to end--"there are
+at least three stages in the development of the organic world where some
+new cause or power must necessarily have come into action." And at the
+head of them he places that which we are now considering, writing
+thus:[104]
+
+     The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the
+     earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it
+     arose, first appeared.... There is in this something quite beyond
+     and apart from chemical changes however complex; and it has been
+     well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the
+     world, possessing altogether new powers....[105]
+
+Such testimonies are sufficient for our present purpose. In face of them
+it cannot be pretended that Science _knows_ anything of spontaneous
+generation or gives her verdict in its favour. On the contrary, as
+Professor Tait declares:[106]
+
+     To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to speak of its
+     higher forms, still less of volition and consciousness, can be
+     fully _explained_ on physical principles alone, ... is simply
+     unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science
+     which can lend the slightest support to such an idea.... To suppose
+     that life, even in its lowest form, is wholly material, involves
+     either a denial of the truth of Newton's laws of motion, or an
+     erroneous use of the term "Matter." Both are alike unscientific.
+
+Yet it is precisely in the name of Science that we have been told to
+accept the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter, as a
+clearly demonstrated truth, and no riddle at all.
+
+But as Professor Virchow, Evolutionist and Materialist as he was, well
+said in regard of this very point in the Munich Congress of 1877:
+
+     If we would speak frankly, we must admit that naturalists may well
+     have some little sympathy for the _generatio aequivoca_
+     [spontaneous generation]. If it were capable of proof, it would
+     indeed be beautiful! But, we must acknowledge, it has not yet been
+     proved. The proofs of it are still wanting.... Whoever recalls to
+     mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts to discover a
+     decided support for the _generatio aequivoca_ in the lower forms of
+     transition from the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it
+     doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly discredited,
+     should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of
+     life.
+
+
+
+
+X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+
+Leaving for later consideration the fourth of Du Bois-Reymond's Unsolved
+Enigmas, namely the seemingly pre-ordained order of the universe, we may
+conveniently group together the three which follow it, as much
+resembling that which has just occupied our attention. These problems,
+it will be remembered, are (_a_) the origin of simple sensation and
+consciousness, or, in other words, of the faculties possessed by
+animals; (_b_) that of rational thought and speech; (_c_)
+Free-will.--Here again we are bound to ask, in the name of right reason
+and common-sense, what light has really been thrown on such questions by
+Science, and how far she has changed their aspect,--that so we may guard
+against the delusion of imagining ourselves to be in possession of more
+knowledge than we actually possess.
+
+(_a_) _Simple sensation and consciousness._ As regards the actual origin
+of the higher form of life which distinguishes the animal from the
+vegetable, we are obviously no better informed than we have found
+ourselves to be concerning the first beginnings of life in any form,--no
+evidence as to the actual facts being available, or even possible, for
+our enlightenment. Once more we can only argue from the present to the
+past, and enquire whether the progress of science has made it more
+reasonable to suppose than it seemed in pre-scientific days that animal
+life has been spontaneously evolved, either from inanimate matter or
+from the vegetative life of plants. This enquiry so much resembles that
+which we have just concluded as to make it unnecessary to pursue it at
+any length.
+
+We find, in fact, that men of Science who have no prepossessions
+whatever against Evolution, and would willingly accept the Law of
+Continuity at all points, if only evidence were forthcoming, find here
+not only an unsolved problem, but one even more difficult than the
+Origin of Life itself. Du Bois-Reymond for example places this amongst
+his "transcendental" enigmas, to which an answer will never be found,
+whereas he thinks that the origin of vegetable life, although at present
+a mystery, may one day be explained. The expression of his
+opinion,--that by no possibility can we ever understand how
+consciousness could be evolved from matter--has, he tells us[107] been
+vehemently contradicted, but, he adds, nothing in the way of argument,
+or beyond mere assumptions, has been brought against him. Of these
+assumptions he notices only that of Professor Haeckel, "the Prophet of
+Jena," who protests against such limitations of our possibilities as
+treason to the sacred cause of Evolution. The progress we have made in
+intellect, says Haeckel, beyond our barbarous progenitors, is sufficient
+to show that we are on the high road of development towards a stage as
+far in advance of the present, as this is of the past; and when that is
+attained, our knowledge will be full and will embrace all this. But,
+asks Du Bois-Reymond in reply, is this mighty progress of ours so very
+evident within the period concerning which we have any information? Has
+the mental capacity of our race notably improved since Homer?[108] or
+its faculty of thinking since Plato and Aristotle? At our present rate
+of progress, long before the high-water mark prophesied by Haeckel is
+reached, the earth will have become uninhabitable. And, were it
+otherwise, the highest point of intellect to which conceivably man could
+attain, would be that of the "sufficient intelligence" whereof we have
+been told, which, from an inspection of the cosmic nebula could foretell
+all that was to issue from it. And, adds Du Bois-Reymond, even could we
+do this, we should still be unable to understand the origin of
+consciousness, which would require intelligence of another order than
+ours, however magnified.
+
+So again Mr. Wallace tells us,[109] after speaking of the beginning of
+life as we have already heard,
+
+     The next stage is still more marvellous, still more completely
+     beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and
+     forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness,
+     constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
+     vegetable kingdoms. Here all idea of mere complication of structure
+     producing the result is out of the question. We feel it to be
+     altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of
+     complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
+     that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence, a
+     thing that _feels_, that is conscious of its own existence. Here we
+     have the certainty that something new has arisen, a being whose
+     nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and
+     definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals. No
+     verbal explanation or attempt at explanation--such as the statement
+     that life is the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm,
+     or that the whole existing organic universe from the amoeba up to
+     man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was
+     developed--can afford any mental satisfaction, or help us in any
+     way to a solution of the mystery.
+
+Unquestionably, there is no lack of speakers and writers who flatly
+contradict such views, and assert that animal life, equally with
+vegetable, could be, and must have been, naturally evolved from
+inorganic nature. The above testimonies, however, amply suffice for our
+present purpose, and with them we may be satisfied; for at least they
+make it plain that Science has found no evidence as to the origin of
+sensation and consciousness conclusive enough to compel belief. And
+where there is no scientific evidence even alleged, such as might
+require the training of a specialist for its due appreciation, one man
+of ordinary intelligence is as competent a judge as another, and
+scientific experts are on a level with the rest of us.
+
+(_b_) _Rational thought and speech._ What has just been said applies
+with equal force to this matter likewise. Unless Science have some
+positive evidence to bring, demonstrating how the gulf can be bridged
+which separates the intelligence of the most degraded races of men from
+the highest of the brutes, and how articulate language can spontaneously
+have arisen, which is the necessary appanage of reason, we have all
+equally the means of forming our conclusions on the subject.
+
+That the gulf between man and the lower animals is here immense we have
+the evidence of Mr. Darwin.
+
+     No doubt [he writes][110] the difference is in this respect
+     enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages,
+     who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who
+     uses no abstract terms for the commonest objects or affections,
+     with that of the most highly organized ape. The difference would,
+     no doubt, still remain immense, even if one of the highest apes had
+     been improved and civilized as much as a dog has been in comparison
+     with its parent form, the wolf or jackal. The Fuegians rank
+     amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with
+     surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. _Beagle_,
+     who had lived some years in England and could talk a little
+     English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental
+     faculties.
+
+Mr. Darwin goes on to argue, however, that the difference between man
+and beast is one of degree only and not of kind; that this can be
+"clearly shewn"; and that there is unquestionably
+
+     a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest
+     fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
+     between an ape and a man; yet this immense interval is filled up by
+     numberless gradations,
+
+from which he concludes that by a like series of steps, of which,
+however, no trace is left, our progenitors have been able to mount from
+the simian to the human level.
+
+Clear however as Mr. Darwin pronounces the evidence to be, it is very
+far from being so considered by other eminent naturalists. So convinced
+an Evolutionist as Mr. Mivart, for example, declared on various
+occasions that his reason abundantly sufficed to convince him that there
+was a wider break in nature between man and the highest ape, than
+between the highest ape and an oyster or even a mushroom.
+
+It is evident that the evidence which permits judgments so diverse as
+these cannot be said conclusively to prove the former existence of a
+bridge every vestige of which has, by the acknowledgment of all parties,
+entirely disappeared. We are therefore left to determine for ourselves,
+whether the powers of our own mind, as each knows them in himself, are
+of a totally different nature from those of dogs and horses, and
+chimpanzees such as the late lamented "Consul," or whether we are
+superior only in degree, as a sheep-dog is more intelligent than a
+sheep, or a fox than a goose.
+
+If in any respect such an enquiry can be made definite and therefore
+profitable, it is clearly in regard of Language. This, as said above, is
+an essential adjunct of reason such as ours, and on the other hand it
+forms the plainest boundary between the domain of the human race and
+that of the brutes. It is, says Professor Max M�ller, our Rubicon on the
+hither side of which men alone are found. Given reason such as ours,
+whatever mode of communication might be open to them, we cannot suppose
+its possessors failing to establish a medium of intercourse. In existing
+conditions, man can make an alphabet out of the clicks of a needle or
+the flashes of a mirror, and if his vocal organs were no better than
+those of a baboon, we cannot imagine him content generation after
+generation with inarticulate howls and yells. But this is just the case
+of the animals. They are _never_ found to make the smallest progress in
+the direction of a code of signals. Dogs indeed, as Mr. Darwin
+says,[111] having developed in captivity the new art of barking, have
+further learnt to vary this accomplishment according to the
+circumstances that provoke it, and have distinct tones to express the
+diversity of their feelings, as when hunting, or angry, or setting out
+for a walk, or shut up in a kennel or out of a house. Some dogs, he
+might have added, refine still further, and will betray by their style
+of bark not only that they are hunting something, but what it is that
+they have come upon, whether a rabbit, a cat, or a hedgehog. But, as the
+Chevalier Bunsen observes,[112] and his observation includes such
+manifestations as the above:
+
+     Animal sounds are the echoes of blind instincts within, or of the
+     phenomena of the outward world, uttered by suffering or satisfied
+     animal nature, and in all cases resulting from mere passiveness.
+
+By rational language, on the other hand, is signified, to quote Mr.
+Mivart:[113]
+
+     The external manifestation, whether by sound or gesture, of general
+     conceptions:--not emotional expressions or the manifestations of
+     sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judgments as to
+     "the what," "the how," and "the why."
+
+Consequently, as Bunsen declares:
+
+     The theories about the origin of language have followed those
+     about the origin of thought, and have shared their fate. The
+     materialists have never been able to show the possibility of the
+     first step. They attempt to veil their inability by the easy but
+     fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to
+     explain the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions
+     of years could supply the want of the agent necessary for the first
+     movement, for the first step in the line of progress! No numbers
+     can effect a logical impossibility. How indeed could reason spring
+     out of a state which is destitute of reason? How can speech, the
+     expression of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of
+     years, out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of
+     pleasure, pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will
+     always shrink from such theories.
+
+Bunsen's words were echoed even more forcibly by professor Max M�ller,
+speaking as President of the Anthropological Section of the British
+Association at Cardiff in 1889.
+
+     What [he asked] does Bunsen consider the real barrier between man
+     and beast? It is language, which is unattainable, or at least
+     unattained, by any animal except man.
+
+     You know [he continued] how for a time, and chiefly owing to
+     Darwin's predominating influence, every conceivable effort was made
+     to reduce the distance which language places between man and beast,
+     and to treat language as a vanishing line in the mental evolution
+     of animal and man. It required some courage at times to stand up
+     against the authority of Darwin, but at present all serious
+     thinkers agree, I believe, with Bunsen, that no animal has ever
+     developed what we mean by rational language, as distinct from mere
+     utterances of pleasure or pain, a subject lately treated with great
+     fulness by Professor Romanes. Still, if all true science is based
+     on facts, the fact remains that no animal has ever found what we
+     mean by a language; and we are fully justified, therefore, in
+     holding with Bunsen and Humboldt, as against Darwin and Romanes,
+     that there _is_ a specific difference between the human animal and
+     all other animals, and that that difference consists in language as
+     the outward manifestation of what the Greeks meant by _Logos_.
+
+It is moreover evident that, far from speech having generated reason, as
+some have preposterously maintained, it is reason which generates
+speech, no less inevitably than sunlight produces the spectrum when it
+passes through a prism. The seeming paradox of Wilhelm von Humboldt is
+in fact a sober truth: "Man is man only through speech, but in order to
+invent it he must already be man." We have plain evidence that before
+means for the internal expression of it are found, the mental word
+(_verbum mentale_) is awaiting them, and that without this it would be
+as impossible for any sort of rational speech to be produced as for an
+apple to be grown without an apple-tree.
+
+Evidence to this effect is furnished by recorded instances of persons
+who from early childhood, or even from birth, were deaf, dumb, and
+blind, and appeared to be cut off from all possibility of human
+converse, the "gates of Mansoul" being thus almost entirely closed. Such
+are the well-known cases of Laura Bridgman, Miss Keller, and Martha
+Obrecht, who had been thus afflicted since their earliest childhood, the
+two first named from the age of two, and the last from that of three
+years.[114] Also the more recent instance of Marie Heurtin, who was so
+born, and consequently could not have even the faintest glimmer of any
+knowledge these senses could convey.[115] Yet, by the exercise of
+ingenious and unwearied charity, a means of communication was elaborated
+through the sense of touch, and the souls which had seemingly been
+buried alive, shewed themselves responsive to such advances,--often
+astonishingly so,--and revealed their possession of faculties identical
+with those of their rescuers. We are told, for example, of Marie Heurtin
+that her intelligence proved to be quick, that she was even "unusually
+clever, evidently eager for knowledge, and, as sometimes happens, her
+faculties being prevented by her infirmity from wasting their powers on
+external objects, were all the more fresh and vigorous." Even more
+wonderful is the case of Miss Keller, who attained a degree of culture
+and accomplishment far beyond the common level of those possessing the
+use of all their senses.
+
+Somewhat akin to such instances is that of the savages from Tierra del
+Fuego mentioned above by Mr. Darwin. In their case likewise, when they
+were brought into communication with people possessed of higher culture
+than their own degraded race, it was found that the corresponding
+faculties within them were not dead, or as yet non-existent, but only
+starved into lethargy; and, the opportunity being given, they speedily
+caused surprise by unmistakable proofs how closely they resemble
+ourselves.
+
+Thus we find that in this branch of our enquiry there is one broad fact,
+which all must recognize and none can deny. No race of men has ever been
+known which could not speak, nor any race of animals which could, or
+which had made the first beginnings of intelligent language. Facts being
+the only groundwork of Science here is undoubtedly something whereon she
+may build an inference, and this inference will certainly not be that
+the faculties of men and animals are radically identical. And if we are
+told, as we constantly are, that it is more truly scientific to admit
+such identity, should there not be some other facts, still more
+significant and equally well established, to exhibit on the other side?
+
+But of what character are the arguments actually adduced? It will be
+sufficient to quote a few which come with the highest authority.
+
+We may start with the almost classical specimen contributed by Mr.
+Darwin himself.
+
+     It does not [he says][116] appear altogether incredible that some
+     unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the
+     growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys
+     the nature of the expected danger. And this would have been a first
+     step in the formation of a language.
+
+Similarly Professor Whitney writes of some supposed "pithecoid"[117]
+men:
+
+     There is no difficulty in supposing them to have possessed forms of
+     speech, more rudimentary and imperfect than ours.[118]
+
+And so again Professor Romanes:[119]
+
+     Let us try to imagine a community considerably more intelligent
+     than the existing anthropoid apes, although still considerably
+     below the intellectual level of existing savages. It is certain
+     that in such a community natural signs of voice, gesture, and
+     grimace would be in vogue to a greater or less extent. As their
+     numbers increased ... such signs would require to become more and
+     more conventional, or acquire more and more the character of
+     sentence-words.
+
+Of course, as Mr. Mivart replies,[120] there is no difficulty in
+supposing anything we choose, or in seeing animals in imagination
+performing feats which never yet have they been known to achieve in
+fact. But no amount of such suppositions or imaginations will furnish
+Science with the scantiest apology for a foothold, nor can the germs of
+language attributed to pithecoid communities or the sagest of their
+patriarchs, be considered as of any greater value than the speeches put
+into the mouths of the animals by �sop or "Uncle Remus."
+
+It is also to be noticed that in these accounts of the origin of
+language, the essential element of reason is always quietly smuggled in
+as a matter of course. Thus Mr. Darwin's wisest of the pithecoids was
+able to "think of" a device for the information of his fellows. There is
+not the smallest doubt that any creature which had got so far as _that_
+would find what he wanted. It is but the old case of the man who was
+sure he could have written Hamlet had he had a mind to do so. Like him,
+the ape might have made the invention, if he had a mind to make
+it;--only he had not got the mind. So too, Professor Romanes' missing
+links use tones and signs which acquire "more and more" the character of
+true speech: which could not be unless they contained some measure of
+that character already. But it is just the first step thus ignored which
+spans the gulf between man and brute.
+
+There is another factor upon which, in conjunction with these
+suppositions, great stress is wont to be laid, namely that of time; it
+being apparently taken for granted that if only time enough be given
+anything whatever may come about. Thus Professor Romanes tells us[121]
+that his imaginary _Homo alalus_, or speechless man, must probably have
+lived for an "inconceivably long time," before getting far enough on the
+road towards speech to give him such an advantage as enabled him to
+crush out his less accomplished congeners; and that even after this
+point was reached, another "inconceivable lapse of time" must have been
+required to turn him into _Homo sapiens_, or man as he actually is.
+Immense intervals, he further tells us, must have been consumed in the
+passage through various grades of mental evolution; "The epoch during
+which sentence-words prevailed was probably immense"; "It was not until
+�ons of ages had elapsed that any pronouns arose."
+
+Meanwhile, there is no scrap of evidence that as a matter of fact any
+thing of all this ever happened at all, and as Bunsen has observed no
+millions of years, even were millions available at discretion, could
+ever supply the want of the faculty without which nothing in the way of
+language could ever be accomplished.
+
+(_c_) _Free-will._--Here is another human faculty which Du Bois-Reymond
+declares never to have been accounted for by natural causation, and he
+greatly doubts whether it should not be classed among the problems that
+must be for ever insoluble.
+
+Professor Haeckel, as we have seen, gets rid of all difficulties on this
+score by laying it down that "the freedom of the will is not an object
+for critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+on an illusion, and has no real existence."
+
+It is plain that for his purpose this is the only course possible. If
+the will be really free, there can be no question of finding a
+mechanical explanation of it. There is therefore no alternative but to
+cut the Gordian knot, and to declare that the liberty which the vast
+majority of men believe themselves to exercise every instant, is proved
+by Science to be no better than a pure dogma, that is to say, a mere
+figment.
+
+When we seek for his indication of the line of argument whereby this
+position is made good, the information supplied is less full than might
+be desired. He begins[122] with a rather lengthy sketch of the history
+of controversy in this regard,--which contains the remarkable statement
+that "Some of the first teachers of the Christian Churches--such as St.
+Augustine and Calvin--rejected the freedom of the will as decidedly as
+the famous leaders of pure Materialism, Holbach in the eighteenth, and
+B�chner in the nineteenth century." Then he proceeds:
+
+     The great struggle between the determinist and the indeterminist,
+     between the opponent and the sustainer of the freedom of the will,
+     has ended to-day after more than 2,000 years, completely in favour
+     of the determinist. The human will has no more freedom than that of
+     the higher animals, from which it differs only in degree, not in
+     kind. In the last [i.e. the eighteenth] century the doctrine of
+     liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological
+     arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different
+     weapons for its definitive destruction--the powerful weapons which
+     we find in the arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We
+     now know that each act of the will is as fatally determined by the
+     organization of the individual, and as dependent on the momentary
+     condition of his environment, as every other psychic activity. The
+     character of the inclination was determined long ago by _heredity_
+     from parents and ancestors; the determination to each particular
+     act is an instance of _adaptation_ to the circumstances of the
+     moment wherein the strongest motive prevails, according to the laws
+     which govern the statics of emotion. Ontogeny teaches us to
+     understand the evolution of the will in the individual child.
+     Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development of the will
+     within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors.[123]
+
+That is all. It is needless to observe that jargon like this proves
+nothing. Of anything approaching to evidence there is here, manifestly,
+no vestige, and there is consequently nothing which can avail to win our
+assent as rational men.
+
+It is likewise obvious that we have here a question as to which every
+human being has the means of judging equally with the most eminent man
+of Science, and modern improvement of the methods and instruments of
+research leaves us just where we always were. The final evidence on the
+subject every man has within himself, in the most vital facts of his own
+experience. Into the philosophy of the matter it is neither necessary
+nor advisable at present to go. In dealing with profound yet elementary
+questions, regarding which our means of knowledge are thus simple and
+direct, men are apt to bewilder themselves when they begin to
+philosophize, and to persuade themselves that they cannot be sure
+precisely of those things that are most certain. George Borrow is by no
+means the only one who has tormented himself with doubts as to his own
+existence.[124] A still larger number have professed to believe
+themselves mere machines compelled to go like clocks, and to do only
+what has been predetermined for them. But such beliefs are for the
+lecture-room or the study only, and in practical life every one behaves
+as if both he himself and others--especially others--were responsible
+for their conduct. So common-sense teaches, than which we shall not find
+a safer guide. "Sir," said the eminently common-sense Dr. Johnson, "we
+_know_ our will is free; and _there's_ an end on't. All theory is
+against the freedom of the will; all experience for it.... But, Sir, as
+to the doctrine of necessity, no man believes it. If a man should give
+me arguments that I cannot answer to prove that I cannot see; because I
+cannot answer his arguments, do I believe that I have no eyes?"
+
+Thus we find once again that the doctrines which some would force upon
+us in the name of Science, on whatever they are founded, have no basis
+of fact, and cannot therefore rightly call themselves scientific.
+
+
+
+
+XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+
+That the world which we inhabit is a _Cosmos_, ruled by law and order,
+no one has ever attempted to deny. Only because laws are everywhere
+found awaiting discovery, is natural science a possibility. What such
+laws really are, we have already considered. They are, as Mr. Lewes puts
+it, the paths along which the forces of nature travel to their results;
+and it is only because these forces keep invariably each to its proper
+path, that we are able to follow them with our minds, either to learn
+anything concerning them, or to turn our knowledge to practical account.
+In something of the same manner, it is because we are assured that our
+railway trains will run on their appointed lines, that we can learn from
+Bradshaw how to get to Exeter or to Edinburgh;--but the forces of Nature
+are never derailed. It is, in fact, as we have heard, the first
+principle of Science, that "the reign of law is universal, the principle
+of continuity ubiquitous,"--and upon this the validity of all her
+methods and conclusions wholly depends. It is taken for granted, with
+absolute confidence, that what is once found to happen will be exactly
+repeated in like circumstances,--that the laws experimentally observed,
+regarding motion, heat, light, sound, chemical combination, electricity,
+magnetism, and the rest, will be faithfully obeyed, in every minutest
+particular, as certainly as suns will rise and set, or moons wax and
+wane. Were it not so, were the forces of Nature to act spasmodically and
+at random, and did not their common action so result as to establish or
+subserve other laws of bewildering complexity,--as in molecular
+dynamics, the mechanism of the heavens, and the processes of organic
+life,--we could learn no more from the study of nature than from a page
+of type which had been set up by an idiot, or an anthropoid ape.
+
+Here is another factor in our problem, and one which has from the first
+attracted the attention of thinking men. No feature of nature impressed
+them more than this same reign of law and order, apparent everywhere;
+and on this account they called the world _Cosmos_, instead of _Chaos_.
+And, since it is self-evident that everything must have a reason for its
+being, that whatever is not self-existent must have a cause other than
+itself, they felt compelled to enquire what manner of cause would
+account for law and order. The like enquiry we have still to pursue, and
+by methods radically the same as ever; for amid all her discoveries
+Science has found nothing which does anything whatever to furnish an
+answer. All that has been done is enormously to multiply the aspects
+under which the problem presents itself.
+
+It is now not merely in the larger and more obvious operations of Nature
+that we can trace this marvellous ubiquity of law, but in her most
+hidden processes and inmost constitution. At every point, we are forced
+to ask why things should be as they actually are, and how they came to
+be subject to conditions which they cannot be supposed to have created
+for themselves. Why, for example, should the ultimate elements of
+matter,--be they atoms, or electrons, or whatever else,--always and
+everywhere observe the same rules of the great game in which they serve
+as counters? Why, to take a concrete instance, should atoms of Hydrogen
+in Sirius, or in a star of the Milky Way, obey just the same laws as do
+those with which we make coal-gas or spirit of salt? These various
+atoms, as Lord Grimthorpe reminds us, have never been within billions of
+miles of one another. What is the mysterious influence which links them
+together across the depths of space? That they are so linked is obvious;
+for if we can ascertain the existence of such a substance in other
+spheres, it is only because the light it emits, exactly agrees when
+analyzed in the spectroscope with that of hydrogen flames in our own
+laboratories. How comes it, again, that the seventy different kinds of
+atoms, (to speak in round numbers)--are distributed--according to
+Mendel�eff's periodic law,--among some seven groups or families, the
+members of each group resembling one another in various particulars,
+wherein they differ from the rest? Or, to pass from atoms to molecules,
+(in which atoms of the same or of different kinds combine, to build up
+simple or compound substances respectively,)--how is it that molecules
+of the same kind are always constructed upon exactly the same model,
+resembling one another far more closely than sovereigns struck from the
+same die, or different copies of this morning's _Times_? It was in this
+uniformity of type, character and behaviour, repeated always and
+everywhere, in instances multiplied "beyond the power of imagination to
+conceive," that Sir John Herschel[125] saw a feature stamping atoms and
+molecules as "manufactured articles, and subordinate agents," which, no
+less than a line of spinning-jennies, or a regiment of soldiers clad in
+the same uniform, and going through the same evolutions, imply a
+controlling force directing things according to a definite system.
+
+These and innumerable other particulars of detail has Science added to
+the problem: but of anything which can supply an answer, she knows no
+more than did the first man who ever mooted the question within his own
+soul.
+
+And if in the inorganic world we find food for such considerations, with
+immensely greater instance are they forced upon us by a study of the
+organic. Here we enter a new realm of mystery, for the laws we encounter
+actively energizing at every point, are altogether different from those
+with which hitherto we have had to deal. The matter which enters into
+the constitution of living things,--animals or plants--is precisely the
+same as that of which the inorganic world is constituted. No single atom
+or molecule is found in the one which has not been drawn from the
+other;--nor when incorporated in a living structure do atoms or
+molecules suffer any alteration, or change their nature in any respect,
+for, says Clerk-Maxwell,[126] throughout all changes and catastrophes
+these remain "unbroken and unworn." Nevertheless, they fall at once
+under the spell of a force which introduces into their operations an
+order altogether new, for it somehow strikes across all the laws of dead
+matter, setting up a new code of its own, which endures just so long as
+life lasts, and is never met with apart from life. And these organic
+laws issue in marvellous results. Professor Haeckel himself, after
+endeavouring to show that from the inorganic world no arguments can be
+drawn to favour the supposition of design in Nature, thus
+continues:[127]
+
+     But the idea of design has a very great significance and
+     application in the _organic_ world. We do undeniably perceive a
+     purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant
+     and animal seem to be controlled by a definite design in the
+     combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in
+     the machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life
+     continues, the functions of the several organs are directed to
+     definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a
+     machine.
+
+How Haeckel proceeds to argue that such appearance of purposive design
+is merely fallacious, we need not here stay to enquire; our present
+concern is to attempt to realize the evidence of law and order which the
+world everywhere exhibits. As we have just heard, the parts of an
+organism, like those of a motor-car, or a chronometer, combine their
+operations for the production of definite ends; the attainment of which
+depends in all instances upon the nicest correspondence of various
+details of their work. Thus, that there should be eyes capable of
+seeing, the laws of optics must be satisfied, reflection, refraction and
+the rest, just as exactly in the making of an eye as in that of a
+telescope. _De facto_ they _are_ satisfied. The eye, Mr. Darwin
+styles[128] "a living optical instrument as superior to one of glass as
+the works of the Creator[129] are to those of man." He speaks, moreover,
+of "all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
+distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
+correction of spherical and chromatic aberration."[130] Therefore,
+however we are to account for them, the laws which govern the
+production of eyes successfully solve a practical problem and satisfy
+laws which were in force before an animal with eyes appeared on earth.
+
+In just the same way, the requirements of sound are met by the
+structure of the ear, which Sir Henry Holland, for example,[131] judged
+more wonderful than that of the eye itself.
+
+So again as to wings. They are in the first place such marvellous pieces
+of workmanship that as Mr. Pettigrew writes concerning one of their
+forms.[132] "There are few things in nature more admirably constructed
+than the wing of a bird, and perhaps none where design can be more
+readily traced." But, moreover, wings entirely different in plan, as of
+birds, bats, and all the varieties of insects, alike satisfy the laws of
+aerostatics, and successfully solve in practice the problem of flight, a
+problem which we are unable to solve even theoretically. "It is
+evident," writes Lord Grimthorpe,[133] "that nobody yet thoroughly
+understands the whole theory of flying, though we are seeing it
+continually, and have unlimited opportunities of examining all sorts of
+wings. The explanation that appears plausible for one kind, not only
+will not do for another but seems refuted by it." Yet in a multitude of
+different ways, the forces of Nature succeed in effecting what with all
+our Science we cannot shew to be possible.
+
+And concerning not merely one portion of a creature's structure, but the
+whole, Professor Huxley declares:[134]
+
+     The horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the
+     fact that it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect
+     pieces of machinery in the living world. In truth, among the works
+     of human ingenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive
+     so perfectly adapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so
+     small a quantity of fuel, as this machine of Nature's
+     manufacture--the horse.
+
+These are but a few out of countless similar examples. "We are
+constantly discovering," says Lord Grimthorpe, "new complications and
+processes, and what to all common sense appear contrivances, in the
+organs of all living things, and indeed we can find no limit to them."
+In all these cases an instrument is fashioned precisely adapted to the
+performance of a certain function, and it is therefore obvious on first
+principles that there must exist _some_ power capable of producing such
+instruments.
+
+It will probably be answered that there are forces enough in Nature to
+account for everything, and that these furnish the needful explanation.
+But, as Mr. Croll rightly insists,[135] Force by itself explains
+nothing. Its mere exercise has no tendency whatever to produce such
+effects. There must likewise be Determination of Force in the one
+definite direction required, and it is in the source of this
+Determination that the true cause must be sought to which the result is
+due. It is not simply because iron is hammered and filed that a
+railway-engine is produced; nor is it sufficient that a block of marble
+be chipped with mallet and chisel in order to obtain a statue of Apollo.
+Unless some influence comes in to direct the forces in such cases to
+their respective results, the results will never by any possibility be
+secured. And in the processes of Nature such direction or determination
+must be exercised in particulars inconceivably intricate, to which the
+works of man furnish no parallel. As Mr. Croll writes:
+
+     If a tree is to be formed, the lines of least resistance must all
+     be determined and adjusted in relation to the objective idea of the
+     tree; of the root; of the branches; of the leaves; of the bud; of
+     the fruit; and of every part of the tree. But this is not all: the
+     tree is built up molecule by molecule, each of which requires a
+     special determination, and, beyond all this, we have the
+     structureless protoplasm, which must be differentiated according to
+     the objective idea of the whole. What produces this marvellous
+     adjustment of means to ends?
+
+And as he insists in another passage:
+
+     The determinations which take place in nature occur not at random,
+     but according to a plan--an objective idea. Thus the question is
+     not simply what causes a body to take some direction, but what
+     causes it to take, among the infinite number of possible
+     directions, the proper direction in relation to the idea. In the
+     formation of, say, the leaf of a tree, no two molecules move in
+     identically the same direction or take identically the same path.
+     But each molecule must move in relation to the objective idea of
+     the leaf, or no leaf would be formed. The grand question,
+     therefore, is, What is it that selects from among the infinite
+     number of possible directions the proper one in relation to this
+     idea?
+
+And this sort of thing is going on in every blossom and leaf and blade
+of grass, in every hair and every feather over the surface of the earth.
+
+Truly does our author find here "The Grand Question," for in it we touch
+the very heart of our whole problem, and are forced to consider more
+closely than we have hitherto done of what character must be the
+ultimate Cause which alone can explain the world.
+
+It is, as we have seen, a first principle of Science, that in enquiries
+such as this, we must proceed from experience to inference, from the
+known to the unknown. Arguing thus, we may legitimately gather from
+observed phenomena, that something exists, which even though it be not
+directly within the range of our senses, must certainly be capable of
+producing such phenomena: just as the perturbations of one planet have
+revealed the existence of another; and the lines in their spectra have
+taught us the chemical constitution of the sun and stars.
+
+This principle being borrowed by Science from common-sense, has
+instinctively been ever adopted by those who set themselves to enquire
+of what kind must be that unseen Power at the back of Nature to which
+the fact of law and order may be ascribed. And as there is but one
+force or power within the range of our experience capable of producing
+such an effect, it is but natural that this should have been constantly
+assumed to represent, at least by analogy, the nature of the power
+required. That there is but one cause known to us experimentally, which
+can determine the operation of force towards the attainment of a
+preconditioned result, none will deny--namely the purposive action of an
+intelligent will, as known to us in ourselves and in our
+fellow-men;--and to Will accordingly, immensely more intelligent than
+ours, has been ascribed the establishment of those laws which the
+highest intellects of our race are able partially and dimly to
+apprehend.
+
+It is thus that we are led to the fundamental doctrine of Theism, to
+belief in an intelligent First Cause, according to whose design the
+universe has been fashioned; a cause which must have all that is found
+in the universe or any part of it, including man, and more--for it has
+of itself what all else derives from it--whose purposes necessarily
+transcend our mental grasp--but whose modes of thought are reflected in
+our own, by which they can in some measure be followed through a study
+of their results.
+
+If such a belief, so grounded, be unscientific, as is constantly
+assumed, there must be good arguments to the contrary. It should be
+demonstrable, either that Science has shown such a line of reasoning to
+be unsound, or that she has discovered within her own domain something
+which, at least conceivably, can do the work thus attributed to
+Intelligence--in which case the much-quoted dictum of Lord Kelvin will
+be in point,--that if a probable solution of any problem can be found
+which is consistent with the ordinary course of Nature, we must not go
+beyond Nature in search of one.
+
+If, on the other hand, the above line of reasoning cannot be
+invalidated, and if scientific methods can discover nothing competent to
+effect what has undoubtedly been effected, it is not easy to see how it
+can be unscientific to proceed by inference to what is confessedly
+beyond the scope of observation and experiment.
+
+That "Teleology," or the doctrine of Final Causality,[136] is unworthy
+of serious consideration, is without doubt a common assumption, and some
+writers seem to think that an argument is sufficiently discredited if it
+be styled "teleological." Yet this rather formidable term represents no
+more than the belief that the infinite adaptations of means to results
+observed in Nature are the effect of purpose, not of chance. And if we
+eliminate purpose, what is there left to furnish an explanation, beyond
+the indubitable fact that such adaptations have always been found in
+organic nature, and that we have learnt confidently to anticipate that
+they will appear generation after generation according to the "law of
+heredity"? But this obviously only tells us that they have been produced
+and are likewise transmitted, and throws no light whatever on the cause
+of the marvellous processes to which their production and their
+transmission are due. If we have any rational grounds for expecting that
+such processes will continue to occur, it cannot be merely that they
+have occurred before, but we instinctively infer that the cause to which
+they are ultimately due continues to operate. We are thus as far as ever
+from an answer to the question, What is that cause?
+
+     It may be urged [says Newman][137] if a thing happens once it must
+     happen always; for what is to hinder it? Nay, on the contrary, why,
+     because one particle of matter has a certain property, should all
+     particles have the same? Why, because particles have instanced the
+     property a thousand times, should the thousand and first instance
+     it also? It is _prima facie_ unaccountable that an accident should
+     happen twice, not to speak of it happening always. If we expect a
+     thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an
+     accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may
+     bring it about twice. _What_ is to hinder its happening? rather
+     what is to make it happen? Here we are thrown back from the
+     question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a
+     fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then we have no
+     experience of any cause but Will.
+
+Here is the crucial point: "We have no experience of any cause but
+Will;" and it follows that if, as Science bids us, we base inference on
+experience alone, there can be no doubt about the conclusion to which we
+shall be led.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+No different is the verdict of Sir John Herschel:
+
+     The presence of _Mind_ [he writes][138] is what solves the whole
+     difficulty: so far, at least, as it brings it within the sphere of
+     our consciousness, and into conformity with our own experience of
+     what action is.
+
+That the introduction of intelligent purpose, as a factor, sufficiently
+meets the requirements of our reason cannot be denied. As Bishop Butler
+insists, it is even impossible for any man in his senses to say that the
+problem can be more easily solved without it. And witnesses not merely
+unfriendly, but positively and even bitterly hostile, are compelled to
+admit that on whatever other grounds they may reject Theism, it is not
+because this doctrine is inadequate as an explanation of the world we
+know.
+
+     It seems to me [says Professor Huxley][139] that "creation," in the
+     ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no
+     difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe
+     was not in existence; and that it made its appearance ... in
+     consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being. The
+     so-called _� priori_ arguments against Theism, and given a Deity,
+     against the possibility of creative acts, appear to me to be devoid
+     of reasonable foundation.
+
+Similarly, that uncompromising foe of religious belief in any shape,
+Professor W. K. Clifford, replying to Dr. Martineau who based his
+argument on the existence of the moral law, as well as the evidence of
+design in Nature, wrote thus:[140]
+
+     I fully admit that the theistic hypothesis, so grounded, and
+     considered apart from objections elsewhere arising, is a reasonable
+     hypothesis and an explanation of the facts. The idea of an external
+     conscious being is unavoidably suggested, as it seems to me, by the
+     categorical imperative of the moral sense; and moreover in a way
+     quite independent, by the aspect of nature, which seems to answer
+     to our questionings with an intelligence akin to our own.
+
+On the other hand, where is an alternative hypothesis to be found of
+which as much can be said,--which will justify itself to reason, by
+accounting for the facts? That no purely materialistic or mechanical
+theory will suffice is not only obvious to common-sense, but is
+acknowledged by those who would gladly find such a theory sufficient.
+
+     It would be a great delusion [writes Weismann][141] if any one
+     were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the
+     universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical
+     principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal
+     matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual
+     need for causality.
+
+Similarly, Professor Huxley admits that even his primeval cosmic nebula
+with the world potential in its womb, leaves something to desire.
+
+     The more purely a mechanist the speculator is [he writes][142] the
+     more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of
+     which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and
+     the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,
+     who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular
+     arrangement was not[143] intended to evolve the phenomena of the
+     universe.
+
+Accordingly, although he was clearly persuaded that Theism is a doctrine
+which we can never have sufficient grounds for accepting, Professor
+Huxley repudiated the notion that scientific discovery has done anything
+to disprove it. Thus he tells us,[144] that, in order to be a
+teleologist, and yet accept Evolution, it is only necessary
+
+     to suppose that the original plan was sketched out ... that the
+     purpose was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out of which
+     the animals have come.
+
+And again,[145] he thus expressed himself regarding two objections
+commonly brought against Darwinism, namely that it introduces "chance"
+as a factor in nature, and that it is atheistic:
+
+     Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons believe in
+     "chance"; and the philosophical difficulties of Theism now are
+     neither greater nor less than they have been ever since Theism was
+     invented.
+
+Accordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we
+are precisely where men have always been,--dependent upon arguments such
+as satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard
+the starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence
+must appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.[146]
+
+That scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning,
+we have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose
+conclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found
+standing in the very front rank of Science.
+
+Like the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a
+Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from
+a study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a
+part of Natural Philosophy.[147]
+
+     We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and
+     Tait][148] the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and
+     Upholder of all things.
+
+     When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G.
+     Stokes,][149] it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to
+     be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But
+     design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study
+     then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a
+     Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things
+     that we behold.
+
+Lord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.[150]
+
+     I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither
+     affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms
+     creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an
+     article of belief.
+
+Thirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture
+before the British Association[151] thus spoke concerning Molecules:
+
+     They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and
+     measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed
+     on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in
+     measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we
+     reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they
+     are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning
+     created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of
+     which heaven and earth consist.
+
+It is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science
+who altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false,
+or at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That,
+however, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced
+as if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be
+determined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is
+abundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which
+influences the great majority of those who style themselves
+rationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be
+established they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as
+they are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can
+pretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely
+exploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such
+statements, that our witnesses have been called--and for this purpose
+their testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his
+Presidential address told the British Association:[152]
+
+     It is true that among scientific men, as in other classes, crude
+     views are to be met with as to the deeper things of Nature; but
+     that the life-long beliefs of Newton, of Faraday, and of Maxwell,
+     are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind, is surely a
+     proposition which I need not pause to refute.
+
+And when from authority we turn to the line of argument adopted by those
+who would impugn that upon which Theists rely, and who reject the idea
+of an intelligent First Cause either as superfluous, or as incapable of
+verification, we find but two courses one or other of which they feel
+themselves compelled to adopt, although it is not very easy to
+understand the state of mind which can rest satisfied with either.
+
+Some, on the one hand, frankly admit that Science has not by her own
+proper methods discovered any ultimate principle of things, and never
+will. But on that very account, they maintain, this ultimate principle,
+whatever it may be, must remain utterly unknown to us--for we can never
+_know_ anything except by the methods of Science. Accordingly, although
+the theistic hypothesis would confessedly furnish such an explanation as
+is lacking, we must not adopt it because we cannot test it
+experimentally.
+
+And yet in ordinary life we have no difficulty in arguing from effect to
+cause in just the same manner, and satisfying ourselves of the existence
+of what we can as little touch or see as the First Cause itself. Thus we
+are convinced of the genius of Shakespeare and Napoleon, and that there
+was a difference between the character of Robespierre and that of Howard
+the Philanthropist. But no man ever saw or touched either genius or
+character, which can be known only by their results. It is by inference
+far less legitimate that those proceed who, like Haeckel, seek in the
+forces of Nature themselves an explanation of phenomena which, as we
+know them, they are wholly incapable of producing. Instead of arguing
+that a cause must therefore exist which is beyond Nature, but whose
+character our own experience enables us in some measure, and
+analogically, to learn, these philosophers start with the assumption
+that no such cause is possible, and then proceed to draw the consequence
+that the condition of Nature must once have been totally different from
+what it actually is, enabling her forces to produce results which no
+experience of any sort indicates as possible.
+
+Those who adopt such an attitude of nescience, and in the proper sense
+of the word are termed Agnostics, find themselves compelled accordingly
+to leave their system in the air, with no basis more solid than the
+elephant and tortoise on which Hindoo astronomers rested the world. They
+must ignore the fundamental principle of Causation, from which we
+started our present enquiry, and in consequence it is impossible that
+their systems should, as Professor Weismann says, satisfy our
+intellectual needs.
+
+Others, on the other hand, declare that the Theistic hypothesis must be
+dismissed, because a better has been found, Science having discovered
+within her own sphere an effectual substitute for the supposed First
+Cause. When we enquire what this may be, we are told that it is the "Law
+of Substance," or "Evolution," or "Nature" herself, or an "Infinite
+Eternal Energy unknown and unknowable," but devoid of intellect and
+will--or "Monism," or some other similar abstraction which can represent
+no idea at all, unless--as often happens--it be clad in the robes of its
+rival, and credited with the very powers and attributes denied to the
+First Cause, so as to become practically the same thing under another
+and misleading name. Regarding this point there will be more to be said
+presently. Here, it will be sufficient to note that this is in truth the
+only meaning which can be attached to much of the language of so-called
+scientific writers.
+
+     Who [asks Mr. Wollaston][153] is this Nature ... who has such
+     tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
+     performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes when
+     dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent
+     abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of
+     an intelligent First Cause?
+
+So at the end of his life Clerk-Maxwell characteristically observed,
+that he had studied many queer religions and philosophies, but had
+found none of them that would work without God concealed somewhere.
+
+Finally, a warning uttered by Lord Rayleigh in the address quoted above
+must not be forgotten. After acknowledging that "unfortunately" there
+are writers speaking in her name who have set themselves to foster the
+prevailing belief that Science necessarily tends towards materialism, he
+thus continued:
+
+     It would be easy, however, to lay too much stress upon the opinions
+     of even such distinguished workers as these. Men who devote their
+     lives to investigation cultivate a love of truth for its own sake,
+     and endeavour instinctively to clear up, and not, as is too often
+     the object in business and politics, to obscure, a difficult
+     question. So far the opinion of a scientific worker may have a
+     special value; but I do not think that he has a claim superior to
+     that of other educated men, to assume the attitude of a prophet. In
+     his heart he knows that underneath the theories that he constructs
+     there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile. The higher
+     mysteries of being, if penetrable at all by the human intellect,
+     require other weapons than those of calculation and experiment.
+
+
+
+
+XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+
+An objection is no doubt awaiting us which many consider absolutely
+fatal to the argument for purpose or design in nature, as above
+presented. That argument, it will be said, rests entirely upon the
+assumption that the sole alternative to Purpose is _Chance_, an
+assumption which, if not dishonest, betrays ignorance scarcely less
+discreditable: for men of science constantly warn us that there is no
+such thing as Chance,--that every occurrence in nature, one as much as
+another, testifies to the uniformity and regularity of natural
+causation,--and that if we speak of any phenomenon being due to Chance,
+this term is but a conventional symbol signifying that we do not know
+what caused it.
+
+Amongst those who take up this position, which is well-nigh universal,
+no better representative need be sought than Professor Huxley, who
+treated the point formally, and was manifestly well satisfied with his
+performance. We have already heard him declare belief in Chance to be an
+absurdity of which none but parsons could be guilty, a class in which he
+clearly conceived the low-water-mark of intelligence to be reached. On
+another occasion,[154] he set himself expressly to the exposure of what
+he described as, "The most singular of the, perhaps immortal, fallacies,
+which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted
+them."
+
+     Probably the best answer [he writes] to those who talk of Darwinism
+     meaning the reign of "Chance," is to ask them what they themselves
+     understand by "Chance." Do they believe that anything in this
+     universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really
+     conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been
+     predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of
+     Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique
+     superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been
+     illumined by a ray of scientific thought.
+
+As an object lesson for his enlightenment, the Professor bids one of
+these benighted folk betake himself to the sea-shore on which a heavy
+storm is breaking; and having painted a rather elaborate word-picture of
+the scene, he thus continues:
+
+     Surely here, if anywhere, he [the unenlightened one] will say that
+     chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the
+     very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that
+     here as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not
+     a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a
+     rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary
+     consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a
+     sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent
+     physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,
+     every one of these "chance" events.
+
+This, however, is mere beating of the air, having no bearing whatever
+upon the question at issue; and we can only wonder that so able a man as
+Huxley could thus absolutely miss the whole point, while remaining
+serenely unconscious that he did so. No sane man ever entertained the
+foolish notion with which he credits his man of straw. On the contrary,
+it is precisely those whom he so heartily despises, that _dis_believe in
+Chance, and deny it any share in the making of the world. They neither
+regard Chance as a possible cause of phenomena, nor make of it a kind of
+deity or fetish, as some appear inclined to do with Science. Their
+contention is that according to those who, with Huxley, reject the idea
+of intelligent purpose, Chance would needs be introduced as a ruling
+element in nature, which would be absurd. Nor in thus arguing do they
+introduce any notion so irrational as that of "absolute" Chance, of
+events happening without causes. But unquestionably there can be
+"relative" Chance. A cause fully sufficient for the production of a
+result, may have no tendency whatever to determine or direct this result
+to a particular end; and if in such circumstances this end be attained
+it is by Chance. In particular, should many independent results of
+purely mechanical forces combine to produce a result, as intelligence
+would combine them, its production can only be ascribed to Chance.
+"Chance" has therefore a very real meaning. It is not a Cause, but the
+absence of Cause: not of Cause altogether, but of the _determining_
+Cause requisite for the production of certain results. The argument
+based upon the impotence of Chance to obtain such results, is precisely
+that which the most exact of all the Sciences, Mathematics, accepts and
+applies in the Theory of Chances.
+
+The answer to the question which Professor Huxley evidently deems
+unanswerable is plain enough. By "Chance" is meant the concurrence,
+unguided by Purpose, of independent forces to produce a definite effect.
+"Chance" denotes the absence of Purpose, as "Vacuum" denotes the absence
+of air; and when it is denied that certain results can come about by
+chance, or fortuitously, it is as when we deny that life can be
+sustained _in vacuo_. It is no positive feature or action of the vacuum
+that we have in mind, for its essence is negative; but just because of
+that negative character, experience has taught us, that it cannot fulfil
+certain functions. In the same manner the potency of "Chance" is denied,
+simply because it is not Purpose.
+
+That there are phenomena for which "Chance" thus defined cannot account
+is, surely, obvious. If a man sits down at a piano and plays "God Save
+the King," no evidence in the world would persuade Professor Huxley or
+any one else, that the performer had never before seen a musical
+instrument, nor knew of the existence of such an air or any other, but
+just put his fingers on the keys as the spirit moved him. Such a story
+would be rightly felt to be absolutely incredible: and yet the notes he
+produced--equally with those of the howling chorus of winds and
+waves--were the necessary effects of physical causes; given that
+particular strings were struck, they could not but follow. The whole
+point is, however, that in this case the result is _not_ a howling
+chorus, but a melody; not mere formless noise, but an orderly
+composition, constructed on definite principles which our mind can
+recognize. It is in regard of this particular feature of the result that
+Force of itself, as we have seen, explains nothing, and that, if there
+is to be any explanation at all, we must know something as to how Force
+received the needful Direction or Determination.
+
+It is only in regard of human action that we can, as in the above
+instance, find an example of what may be called pure fortuity, for such
+action alone can be traced up to an initial cause, namely the exercise
+of Will. No one can have a right to call the action of natural forces
+fortuitous; on the contrary, we have seen arguments that in the
+inorganic world itself purpose must be recognized. But an action
+directed by purpose to one result may be quite fortuitous in regard of
+another. A man who digging a foundation for a house finds a buried
+treasure, discovers this by chance. Although his action was ruled by a
+most definite purpose, that purpose was not this. So again when,
+according to the old story, certain Phoenician mariners finding no
+stones on the sea-shore suitable for the purpose, used blocks of natron
+to support their cooking-pots, and so produced glass, they were led to
+the discovery by mere chance. And in like manner, however definitely the
+forces of matter may be determined each to its own proper end, there are
+results which if produced by them must be as purely fortuitous as such
+an invention made by men who thought only of preparing their dinner. The
+cable which was being laid to America having, in 1865, snapped and sunk
+in mid-Atlantic, it was determined in the following year to attempt its
+recovery. Meanwhile the shore-end at Valencia was still connected with
+the dial-plate, on which messages had been scored between ship and shore
+while the cable was intact. A telegraphist was constantly on duty,
+watching the needle which was never still, being deflected hither and
+thither by the earth-currents, working through the wires. On a sudden,
+however, the needle spelled out the letters "Got it," and it was known
+with absolute certainty that there was a man at the other end. It is no
+doubt perfectly true that each previous movement had been the necessary
+consequence of the force applied, just as truly as those which coincided
+with the conventions of the telegraphist's alphabet; but win any one say
+that such coincidence could conceivably be attributable to the forces of
+magnetism alone, however exact to the laws according to which they
+operate?
+
+It must always be remembered that the question we have to discuss is,
+how far Science casts any light upon such questions as the one before
+us. And since "Science" is taken to mean knowledge acquired through the
+observation of phenomena alone, we have at present to enquire whether
+material forces, the only ones of which observation directly tells us
+anything, could have produced such effects as we have considered,
+otherwise than by mere "Chance"? If they could not, is it imaginable
+that they produced these effects at all? And it appears obvious that
+unless there be Purpose at the back of Nature, Chance must be
+acknowledged as the architect of the universe.
+
+Professor Huxley tells us, it is true, that such an idea could be
+entertained by no one whose mind had ever been illumined by a ray of
+scientific thought. In face of this it is rather remarkable to find that
+the idea was undoubtedly entertained by Mr. Darwin, who took for granted
+that to deny Purpose is to affirm Chance.
+
+     I am conscious [he wrote to Asa Gray][155] that I am in an utterly
+     hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is
+     the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing
+     as the result of Design.
+
+And again:[156]
+
+     I cannot any how be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
+     especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is
+     the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as
+     resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or
+     bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this
+     notion _at all_ satisfies me.
+
+Professor Haeckel too is by no means in accord on this point with his
+friend Professor Huxley. He writes:[157]
+
+     One group of philosophers affirms, in accordance with the
+     teleological conception, that the whole cosmos is an orderly
+     system, in which every phenomenon has its aim and purpose; there is
+     no such thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical
+     theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a
+     monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose
+     whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special
+     result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the
+     heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find
+     any trace of a controlling purpose--all is the result of chance.
+     Each party is right--according to its definition of chance. The
+     general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of
+     substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;
+     in this sense there is no such thing as chance. Yet it is not only
+     lawful, but necessary to retain the term for the purpose of
+     expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are
+     not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own
+     mechanical cause independent of the other. Everybody knows that
+     chance, in this monistic sense, plays an important part in the life
+     of man and in the universe at large. That, however, does not
+     prevent us from recognizing in each "chance" event, as we do in the
+     evolution of the entire cosmos, the universal sovereignty of
+     nature's supreme law, _the law of substance_.
+
+There is a good deal here which is less clear in the way of argument
+than could be wished. The famous _Law of Substance_, as we have seen,
+has two articles: The indestructibility of matter, and the conservation
+of energy. What light either of these principles may be supposed to shed
+on such questions as the adaptation of organs to their functions is by
+no means obvious. To say that there is no design in the organic world,
+because it is a special result of biological agencies,--is quite of a
+piece with the contention which has actually been made, that we can no
+longer argue to Design, with Paley, from the analogy of a watch, since
+"nearly every part of a watch is now made by inanimate machinery."[158]
+Thus much, however, is perfectly clear: the competence of Chance is
+recognized to originate a world like ours, and to enable Nature, as
+Professor Clifford says, seemingly to answer our questionings with an
+intelligence akin to our own.
+
+It would thus appear that when Newton asks,--Was the eye fashioned
+without knowledge of the laws of light, or the ear, without knowledge of
+those of sound?--we are to answer in the affirmative, and to say that
+such organs are but special results of biological agencies, under the
+general management of the Law of Substance.
+
+That such a reply cannot with any truth be termed scientific is
+plain--for it touches matters which by her own acknowledgment Science
+cannot reach;--nor does it seem probable that this kind of talk would
+convince anybody, were there nothing more. Undoubtedly those who
+persuade themselves that the Order of the Universe can be sufficiently
+explained without introducing the idea of purpose or design, are
+influenced by other considerations than these.
+
+(1) With some it is the argument, which appears chiefly to have weighed
+with Mr. Darwin, who constantly speaks of it as the great obstacle to
+that belief in Design which the marvels of the universe would otherwise
+necessitate. This he based on certain features in Nature which appeared
+to him incompatible with the work of a beneficent Author, mainly the
+existence of suffering amongst animals in whose case it cannot be
+supposed to subserve any purpose of moral benefit. As he wrote to Asa
+Gray:[159]
+
+     I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should
+     wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.
+     There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
+     myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
+     created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
+     feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat
+     should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in
+     the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
+
+Such a mode of meeting the arguments for Design, though only indirect,
+undoubtedly deserves serious consideration, touching as it does the
+darkest of all mysteries--the Origin of Evil. It is clear, however, that
+in Mr. Darwin's case, and probably in that of many others, its effect
+was due in no slight degree to imagination rather than to reason. He
+picks out one or two instances of seeming cruelty in Nature, as though
+they were something exceptional, and appears to imply that they create
+an obstacle to a belief which Nature as a whole almost forces upon him.
+In reality, the same sort of thing goes on everywhere. Animal life from
+beginning to end is a record of rapine and slaughter, as Tennyson
+declared in a verse too trite to bear quotation. The most petted of pet
+dogs has no more compunction than a tiger in worrying creatures weaker
+than itself, and a robin-redbreast takes far more lives daily than does
+a sparrow-hawk. But to draw from these facts such large conclusions--is
+quite another matter. Can we imagine that we are qualified by the
+fulness of our knowledge to pronounce judgment and declare that there
+can be no good end where we fail to perceive one? As Mr. Darwin admits
+in the very same passage: "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
+too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on
+the mind of Newton."
+
+How much is there in the actions of persons much lowlier than Newton
+which to the most intelligent of animals, dogs, elephants, or monkeys,
+could they speculate at all, must seem wholly devoid of sense;--as for
+instance that men should spend such continual labour in digging and
+ploughing. So again, in his famous lecture on Coal, Professor Huxley
+depicts what might have been the reflections of a giant reptile of the
+Carboniferous Epoch, suggested by the seemingly senseless waste of
+nature's powers in the production of the primeval forests, that have
+furnished the coal measures, to which so much of our progress and
+civilization is directly due.
+
+And, after all, given the universal law of death for all living things,
+it would hardly appear that we can assure ourselves that any attendant
+circumstance constitutes a greater evil--as Mr. Darwin's argument seems
+to assume; and yet, it does not appear ever to have been argued that
+there can be no purpose in Nature since no organic life endures for
+ever. Most probably, if we knew enough, we should plainly see that
+nothing could be more cruel than to have omitted the carnivora from
+creation, leaving herbivorous animals to multiply till they starved one
+another to death, or at least to perish of senile decay far more
+painfully than under the fangs of tigers and wolves. Instances might
+moreover be quoted which serve to remind us how impossible it is rightly
+to estimate the true character of suffering amongst creatures altogether
+different from ourselves. Thus when, as eye-witnesses report, young
+scorpions clinging to their mother devour her alive, scientifically
+avoiding as long as possible all vital parts and mortal wounds--we are
+inclined to consider them monsters of wickedness, and their parent as a
+model of motherly devotion, whose sufferings cannot be less horrible
+than those of a caterpillar similarly eaten by the ichneumon grub. But
+we cannot with any reason impute more moral blame to the young
+scorpions, than to the lambkins which draw sustenance from their dams in
+another fashion which we find touching and poetical; while as for the
+mother--who doubtless treated her own parent in just the same
+fashion--she exhibits no symptom to show that she resents her
+offsprings' advances, any more than does the ewe, but on the contrary
+has her sting ever ready for any one who would interfere with them.
+
+(2) It is a still more common objection to the doctrine of purpose
+everywhere in Nature, that such an idea is negatived by the continuity
+and uniformity of natural laws, precluding the notion of constant
+interference by another, supernatural, Agent. But this objection is
+based upon an entire misconception. No one imagines such intervention,
+or that purpose guides nature as a pilot guides a ship by repeated
+orders to the man at the wheel. Undoubtedly the reign of law in nature
+is uninterrupted, but in that law purpose is interwoven as the
+controlling element; just as the mind of Homer governs the hand of every
+printer who sets up type for a new edition of the _Iliad_.
+
+(3) Finally, there is the argument, already alluded to, that inasmuch as
+the most complex structures are daily transmitted under our eyes by
+generation, we have evidence that nature can produce them from her own
+resources, and by the operation of a merely natural law, such as no one
+doubts generation to be.
+
+Such an argument, it is evident, merely begs the question at issue,
+offering as it does no explanation, or suggestion, as to how a power so
+marvellous was acquired. It would be equally philosophical to argue that
+there is nothing wonderful about the genius of a great poet because we
+confidently anticipate that it will be exhibited in the next piece he
+produces.
+
+It is likewise clear that, here again, imagination rather than reason
+furnishes the argument. In the first place, were there nothing else, no
+explanation whatever would thus be afforded as to how the structures in
+question were first produced, before they could be transmitted. And,
+secondly, which is still more important, generation--far from furnishing
+an explanation of anything--introduces us to mysteries yet more
+inscrutable than any we have yet encountered, and to problems which
+seem to admit of no possible solution apart from, not only Purpose, but
+transcendent Power.
+
+Doubtless the propagation of life is ruled by natural law, but how such
+law effects its object we understand immeasurably less than we
+understand the flight of birds or butterflies. As a recent writer
+reminds us,[160] what is transmitted from parents to offspring "is not a
+new form or structure, but only the _potentiality_ of such a new form:
+which, in suitable circumstances, builds _itself_ up out of surrounding
+inorganic and organic material." As Lord Grimthorpe expresses the same
+truth:[161]
+
+     If we suppose an apple-tree to have once grown somehow, and to have
+     somehow got power to produce seeds, that would not produce any more
+     apple-trees, unless the seeds, and all the adjacent atoms that are
+     wanted, had the power and the will to combine and grow into another
+     apple-tree. The first hen that laid an egg performed a wonderful
+     feat enough, but it would have done no good unless the atoms of the
+     egg also knew and resolved what to do to turn themselves into a
+     chicken. Yet spontaneous evolutionists are in the habit of slurring
+     over generation as a thing too "natural," and therefore too easy
+     and simple to require explanation.
+
+The continual operation of a law such as this, certainly does not remove
+mysteries, nor make it more easy to understand how the order and the
+marvels of the universe can rationally be attributed to Chance rather
+than to Design, according to "this new philosophy of effects without
+causes and laws without a lawgiver."[162] For "fortuitous" means, as
+Professor Case has well observed,[163] not the accidental, as opposed to
+the regular laws of nature, but the spontaneous necessity of nature, as
+opposed to the voluntary designs of intelligence. Nor is it only in the
+organic world that we find the need of such a factor to explain
+phenomena; for it is throughout more essential than any other force to
+account for Nature as we find her--in such a manner as to satisfy the
+logical demands of our mind. We learn as little from observation and
+experiment as to the fundamental laws of matter,--gravitation, for
+instance, which Faraday and Herschel termed "the mystery of mysteries,"
+or chemical affinities, or the nature of Ether--as concerning anything
+in organic nature; though in the latter we undoubtedly mount to a higher
+plane of mysteriousness. And in either case we could learn nothing
+whatever,--that is to say, Science would be wholly impossible,--did we
+not find natural phenomena respond to our enquiries with what seems an
+intelligence akin to our own. And accordingly it appears but
+reasonable,--that is to say, truly scientific,--to exclaim as did even
+Diderot--"Quoi! le monde form� prouverait moins une intelligence que le
+monde expliqu�!"
+
+
+
+
+XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+
+All systems of philosophy that reject the idea of an intelligent First
+Cause, which alone is self-existent, and whose being is of a higher
+order than that of aught else,--base their denial on the assumption that
+no such distinction of nature either exists or is possible,--that there
+is but one reality, namely the substance whereof the sensible world
+consists,--that this has always existed with the same forces it has now,
+and that it is the source of all phenomena. This assumption of the
+unreality of whatever is beyond the scope of sense, which has ever been
+at the bottom of materialistic systems, is now elaborately formulated as
+a creed, declared by Professor Haeckel and his following to be the only
+creed which science can tolerate. This is termed _Monism_,--from the
+Greek M�nos, "single," and is opposed to _Dualism_, or the
+doctrine that there are two orders of being, or two distinct substances,
+material and spiritual.[164]
+
+According to monistic teaching, therefore, there exists but one _Thing_,
+that which we usually call Matter, but might equally well call
+Mind,--for all phenomena whatever, whether mental or material, are but
+various shapes which it assumes, exhibiting diverse aspects of itself.
+Thus all the objects which appear to have a being of their own,--as the
+globe we inhabit, the furniture of earth and heaven, we ourselves,--are
+but the forms momentarily assumed by this protean entity in its
+ceaseless transfigurations, and have no more existence of their own than
+the ripples on a pool of water or the faces we see in the fire. It
+follows that when the particular phase of this basic substance is ended
+which brings us into being, (or rather which we _are_,) we like
+everything else, sink into blank nothing,--so that the mighty dead whom
+nations honour, or the loved ones whose memory we cherish, are blotted
+out of existence as utterly as the days and nights which made up the
+span of their lives. But amongst its permutations and combinations this
+solitary reality can produce the phenomena which we call thought, just
+as much as those which we call motion, and accordingly the _Aeneid_ or
+_Hamlet_ is its work, a mechanical product of evolution, no less than a
+seam of coal, or an eclipse of the moon.
+
+Such, in outline, is the philosophical system which commends itself, as
+Professor Haeckel assures us,[165] to all men of science, who combine
+the necessary conditions, of scientific knowledge, mental acumen, moral
+courage, and intellectual independence. It may be rightly described as
+materialistic pantheism; for while, according to it, everything is
+equally divine, in the only sense in which anything can be so,
+everything is likewise equally material, as falling under the category
+of what we know as matter, and within the direct cognizance of physical
+science.
+
+Accurately to sketch a doctrine such as this is a task of no slight
+difficulty. It undoubtedly contradicts the instinctive teaching of our
+consciousness, so that, as Professor Haeckel admits[166] in the
+primitive stages of both religion and philosophy Monism is unknown.
+Moreover, even those who most loudly profess it, have by no means as yet
+succeeded in realizing their own system, and after having from time to
+time formally enunciated its articles, proceed forthwith to ignore them,
+and in the staple of their discourse speak like other men in terms which
+have no meaning if the tenets of their creed have any. As a natural
+result their exposition of monistic doctrine is not very easy of
+apprehension, but it seems to be not unfairly reflected in the above
+summary.
+
+Professor Haeckel himself thus expounds "that unifying conception of
+nature as a whole which we designate in a single word as Monism."[167]
+
+     By this we unambiguously express our conviction that there lives
+     "one spirit in all things," and that the whole cognizable world is
+     constituted, and has been developed, in accordance with one common
+     fundamental law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential
+     unity of inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been
+     evolved from the former only at a comparatively late period. We
+     cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between these two great
+     divisions of nature, any more than we can recognize an absolute
+     distinction between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, or
+     between the lower animals and man. Similarly, we regard the whole
+     of human knowledge as a structural unity; in this sphere we refuse
+     to accept the distinction usually drawn between the natural and the
+     spiritual. The latter is only a part of the former (or _vice
+     vers�_); both are one. Our monistic view of the world belongs,
+     therefore, to that group of philosophical systems which from other
+     points of view have been designated also as mechanical or as
+     pantheistic.
+
+More concisely and clearly, Professor Romanes tells us:[168]
+
+     Mental phenomena and physical phenomena, although apparently
+     diverse, are really identical.
+
+And in a work recently issued for the express purpose of expounding and
+diffusing the new gospel, we read:[169]
+
+     Just as the same particles of matter may at one time form parts of
+     a rose, and at another time parts of a mushroom, so the same force
+     may at one time strike a church as lightning, and at another time
+     may be the mother-love that rocks the cradle.
+
+If such conceptions are not easy to grasp, there can be no doubt as to
+the practical conclusions to which they lead. We have already heard from
+Professor Haeckel that human freedom is an utter delusion. We have
+likewise seen that the only term in prospect is utter annihilation,
+which Professor Haeckel endeavours to persuade us is the consummation we
+ought to wish.
+
+"The best we can desire," he says,[170] "after a courageous life, spent
+in doing good according to our light, is the eternal peace of the grave.
+'Lord give them an eternal rest.'"
+
+It is evident however that in order to secure such a reward it is not
+necessary to show any courage, or attempt any sort of good-work, for
+according to him it equally awaits the most selfish and abandoned
+voluptuary.
+
+Finally,[171]
+
+     At our death there disappears only the individual form in which the
+     nerve-substance was fashioned, and the personal "soul" which
+     represented the work performed by this. The complicated chemical
+     combinations of that nervous mass pass over into other
+     combinations--by decomposition, and the kinetic energy produced by
+     them is transformed into other forms of nature.
+
+      Imperial C�sar, dead and turned to clay,
+      Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.--
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+which lines others besides Haeckel are fond of quoting on this subject
+as if they had any possible connexion with it. It would be more to the
+point, and far more interesting, were some indication afforded of the
+chemical equivalent of the qualities which made C�sar imperial, or those
+which distinguished the author of the above lines from the bards of our
+Music Halls. That, when a man is no more, his material part may serve
+various material purposes, is no more than was known to the first savage
+who made a drum with his enemy's skin, or used his skull for a
+drinking-cup.
+
+As has been said, the Monistic philosophy claims to be above all things
+scientific, and upon this ground are we bidden to accept it. But what is
+the meaning of this claim? The one argument, apart from mere assertion,
+brought to show that spirit is not distinct from matter, is drawn from
+the part undoubtedly played by the brain in the process of thought,
+though we see far less in this, as in other connexions, than the
+assertions made by unscientific writers might lead us to imagine. But
+when all this is most fully acknowledged can it be said that the state
+of the question is changed from what it was? To listen to Monists, it
+might be supposed that the intimate connexion between soul and body is
+a new discovery, undreamt of in former ages,--and that we have now
+arrived at a demonstration that it is our material part that actually
+does our thinking. But, as a matter of fact, like other fundamental
+questions, this is exactly as it has ever been, and so far as Science is
+concerned, we are just as much in the dark respecting it as men ever
+were. Though the philosophers of former days were unaware of all the
+departmental details of brain activity, they understood as well as we do
+the essential point, that in our composite nature soul and body form
+_one_ being, whose every operation is of mixed character like itself.
+The soul alone is the intelligent principle, yet all objects of
+knowledge must come to it through sense, and in the senses it can be
+reached only by the mechanical media of light, or sound, or touch. So
+firm was their grip of this principle that the Schoolmen styled the soul
+the "substantial form" of the body, and in their mouth this term
+expressed a union more essential and intimate than modern philosophers
+can perhaps imagine.
+
+And, on the other hand, have all the results of modern research brought
+anything to light which tends to show that matter can by any possibility
+_think_? We are assured on the contrary, upon unimpeachable authority,
+that however we may succeed in tracing the mechanical processes of
+sensation to their furthest limit, it remains absolutely inconceivable
+to us how the gulf is crossed that lies between this and rational
+perception. So Professor Tyndall tells us:[172]
+
+     The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding
+     facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite
+     thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur
+     simultaneously, we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor
+     apparently any rudiments of an organ, which would enable us to pass
+     by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear
+     together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so
+     expanded as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the
+     brain, were we capable of following all their motions, all their
+     groupings and electrical discharges, if such there be, and were we
+     intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and
+     feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the
+     problem--"How are these physical processes connected with the facts
+     of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes remains still
+     intellectually impassable.
+
+With these views Professor Huxley[173] expresses his agreement, and
+although he contrives to confuse the issue very considerably, as is not
+unusual when he undertakes to philosophize, he lays down in the clearest
+possible terms that nothing whatever is _known_ as to the connexion of
+mechanical processes with thought, whence it follows that on this point
+Science has nothing to tell us.
+
+"I really know nothing whatever [he writes] and never hope to know
+anything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to
+states of consciousness is effected."
+
+It should be needless to repeat that if nothing is known regarding all
+this, it is mere charlatanism to pretend that Science tells us anything
+about it, and those who make such assertions use words to which no
+meaning can attach. Unfortunately such a practice is far from uncommon
+in connexion with these questions. What sense can there be conceivable
+in the well-known materialistic doctrine that the brain secretes
+thought, just as the proper organs secrete bile or saliva? Bile and
+saliva are material substances, with a definite chemical constitution,
+each adapted to one definite function. But, Thought! It would be as
+intelligible to talk of secreting the British Constitution, the Steam
+Engine, and the Differential Calculus.
+
+So much for the sole basis of Monistic argument. When we turn to some
+other considerations it certainly becomes no easier to understand the
+claim of Monism to be scientific. In the first place, as we have seen,
+in order to furnish the system with any semblance of truth, it has been
+found necessary to attribute to the ultimate elements of matter
+qualities which all our experience denies them; for Professor Haeckel
+has told us that "the two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable
+matter and ether, are not dead, and only moved by extrinsic force, but
+they are endowed with sensation and will." Of such attributes, and that
+of self-mobility, it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been
+said already. Assuredly nothing can look less like the great ultimate
+reality, of whose ceaseless metamorphoses, we are but a flitting phase,
+than the material substances with which we can do what we like,
+investigating their laws, exploring their constitution, and setting them
+tasks which we know exactly how they will accomplish.
+
+Another point in the same connexion is no less important. What is this
+one _Thing_, this Ultimate and Solitary Self-existent Reality, from
+which Monism takes its title? Professor Haeckel has told us of two
+fundamental forms of substance,--ponderable matter and ether. These he
+evidently supposes, as his creed requires, to be radically the same: but
+what right has he to take such a supposition for a fact? and unless this
+unity be a fact, what becomes of Monism? What has Science ever
+discovered that can justify any one in speaking of Ether and Matter as
+one and the same? How, then, can a theory that assumes their identity be
+termed "scientific?"
+
+Or, leaving Ether alone, "that half-discovered entity," as Lord
+Salisbury styled it on a famous occasion, and restricting our attention
+to ponderable matter, concerning which we know a little more,--how can
+even this be spoken of as "One"? As we have seen already it is only by a
+figure of speech that the term "Matter" can be used at all. It stands
+not for a single thing, but for countless millions and billions of
+atoms, dispersed through space, some of one kind some of another, no one
+of which can be imagined to owe its existence or its properties to any
+other. To say that matter is self-existent is to say that every several
+atom is self-existent. If this be so, and if this be the ultimate
+Reality,--then there are as many first principles, or first causes, as
+there are atoms. Yet none of these could do anything to the purpose
+towards the evolution of anything, without the concurrence of a
+multitude of others, nor would such concurrence be possible but for the
+reign of law, which none of them can have instituted, but to which all
+alike are subject. Were matter the great reality, even matter composed
+of "animated atoms," the term _Monism_ would be sadly out of keeping,
+and should yield its place to _Myriadism_. If, on the other hand, there
+_is_ a unifying principle amid such diversity, this it must be which can
+control and direct all to one end.
+
+It is undoubtedly hard to understand how the First Principle of all
+things can be supposed to consist of Atoms, but this is one of the
+perplexities in which monistic doctrines abound. That atoms _are_, so
+far as we know, the ultimate constituents of the Fundamental Reality,
+Professor Haeckel admits. It is true, he adds, that our knowledge of
+these ultimate elements is still far from satisfying, and he likewise
+anticipates that atoms will someday be discovered not really to be
+ultimate, but forms of something, more primal still.
+
+     Although [he says][174] Monism is on the one hand for us an
+     indispensable and fundamental conception in science, and although,
+     on the other hand, it strives to carry back all phenomena, without
+     exception, to the mechanism of the atom, we must nevertheless still
+     admit that as yet we are by no means in a position to form any
+     satisfactory conception of the exact nature of these atoms, and
+     their relation to the general space-filling, universal ether.
+     Chemistry long ago succeeded in reducing all the various natural
+     substances to combinations of a relatively small number of
+     elements; and the most recent advances of that science have made it
+     in the highest degree probable that these elements ... are
+     themselves in turn only different combinations of a varying number
+     of atoms of one single original element. But in all this we have
+     not as yet obtained any further light as to the real nature of
+     these original atoms or their primal energies.
+
+From which it is clear, that, while the considerations above presented
+lose none of their force, the Monistic system, by the avowal of its
+chief apostle, is based on complete ignorance concerning all which could
+furnish it with a foundation.
+
+But by far the most serious consideration yet remains. If, according to
+Monistic teaching men are but bubbles on the surface of reality, and are
+inevitably carried as it wills,--there is an end of all distinction
+between good and evil, right and wrong, merit and guilt. One man, or one
+line of conduct, is as good, or as bad, as another, being all equally
+the products of Evolution, and aspects of the great Monistic
+principle;--"Jack the Ripper," and Socrates, Messalina and Queen
+Victoria, Chief Justice Scroggs and Sir Thomas More, are none of them in
+any possible sense one whit better or worse than the others,--inasmuch
+as they all did but act as puppets actuated by one and the same
+original, playing its own part in them all.
+
+And in like manner as regards Truth. It must follow that a man's
+beliefs, like his actions, are as much beyond his own control as his
+stature or the colour of his hair. If Professor Haeckel calls Monism
+supreme wisdom, and I call it nonsense, we are equally right, for each
+is the mouthpiece of the same one all-embracing first-principle. What
+each believes is the only thing possible for him to believe, and, so far
+as he is concerned, is the only truth.
+
+But here comes in a perplexity. If such be the case, if there be no
+Free-will, and no possibility whatever of doing or believing anything
+but what is predetermined for us as a necessary part of our
+being,--where is the sense of all the strenuous efforts that are being
+made to convert the people to a belief which, according to its own
+principles, nothing in the world can make them accept, unless nothing in
+the world can prevent them from accepting it? What again is the meaning
+of organizations, such as we hear of, for giving ethical instruction to
+the young on a Monistic and determinist basis? What can be the possible
+sense of giving ethical lectures to young people, if it is really
+believed that the course of each is marked out for him more rigorously
+than the path of a city omnibus? "If" said Professor Paul Darnley in Mr.
+Mallock's clever satire,--"If we would be solemn, and high, and happy,
+and heroic, and saintly, we have but to strive and struggle to do what
+we cannot for an instant avoid doing,"--namely, conform to the laws of
+matter. If Monists were to limit their aspirations to this, their
+teaching would at least be intelligible. It ceases to be so, when they
+feel compelled to graft on their Monistic stock the Dualistic notions of
+Right and Wrong, Truth and Error. But, as Dr. Johnson said respecting
+Free-will, no one ever believes the arguments on the other side, however
+loudly he may profess to do so. And in the same way it is quite clear
+that no Monist can get himself really to accept Monism.[175]
+
+
+
+
+XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+
+We have now considered the question of Evolution in the larger and more
+fundamental signification of the term to which, as we noted at starting,
+very different meanings are attached; and at this stage of our
+discussion it will be convenient to sum up the main conclusions at which
+we have arrived.
+
+It is, in the first place, unwarrantable to pretend that the discoveries
+of modern Science, brilliant and marvellous as they undoubtedly are,
+have thrown any light upon the origin of the Material Universe, or of
+its forces, or of the laws according to which its operations proceed.
+Nor has Science anything to tell as to the origin of life, of sensation,
+or of reason. Nothing as yet discovered by her, or which she can discern
+any prospect of discovering, adds aught to our knowledge regarding such
+points as these.
+
+Therefore, to say that the doctrine of Evolution as affirmed by Science,
+explains the existence of the world we know, is untrue and unscientific.
+
+Moreover, we have seen that, as a factor without which the Order of
+Nature is unintelligible, the First Cause to which her existence is
+owing must be possessed of Intelligence, determining her processes
+according to its purposes. Hence it follows that no system of philosophy
+satisfies our reason which would find the ultimate explanation of all
+things in the forces of matter themselves which it is the province of
+Science to investigate.
+
+On the other hand, in maintaining that Purpose must needs have acted, we
+do not assume to pronounce as to the manner of its action. To say that
+Purpose rules every detail in the making or development of the universe,
+does not by any means signify that it interferes at every step with the
+laws of Nature. Rather, these laws are the expression of Purpose,--its
+machinery to secure its designed result. Assuming, for instance, the
+primeval existence of Professor Huxley's cosmic nebula, so constituted
+that the actual world was bound naturally to issue from it, as does a
+chicken from an egg, or an oak from an acorn,--while we find it
+inconceivable that such a piece of mechanism should originate without an
+intelligence to design it,--we have no difficulty in supposing that
+intelligence to have exhibited itself once for all at the first
+beginning, and to have fashioned the actual world by shaping the causes
+or conditions by which it was to be produced, thus making everything,
+not directly and immediately but as St. Augustine held "_causaliter et
+seminaliter_."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+There remains for consideration Evolution in its narrower sense, in
+which its operations are restricted to organic nature, such Evolution
+being commonly, but incorrectly, identified with "Darwinism." Understood
+thus, "Evolution" signifies no more than that the various species of
+animals and plants have descended _genetically_ one from another,
+through a graduated series of intermediate forms which link them
+together. _Darwinism_ is one particular mode of explaining how such
+transformations may be accounted for,--namely, by what is known as
+"Natural Selection." The theory of Evolution, as thus concerned with
+Organic life in particular, is compendiously described as
+"Transformism," under which head Darwinism is evidently included.
+
+Transformism makes no pretence to account for the origin of life,
+whether animal or vegetable. Living things must exist before any
+question arises as to their transmutation. But, given the existence of
+life, Transformists undertake in the first place to show that Organic
+Evolution has, as a matter of fact, occurred, and is still in process of
+occurrence; and secondly, to exhibit the manner in which this process is
+actually worked out. As to the first point, all Transformists, whether
+Darwinians or others, are necessarily at one, for the fact of Evolution
+is equally essential for every explanation of its method. It is when
+they come to explain in what manner evolutionary transformations have
+been wrought that Transformists divide themselves into various schools,
+each of which relies upon some particular factor to furnish the required
+explanation. Thus besides Darwinians pure and simple, there are
+neo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, neo-Lamarckians, Weismannists, and others,
+ascribing the results to physiological selection, sexual-selection, or
+other forces, rather than natural selection. Of such systems, however,
+excepting only Darwinism, it will be unnecessary to speak in particular.
+The great fundamental question is whether genetic Evolution be really
+established as a fact,--which, as has been said, equally affects them
+all--and if it be advisable to treat more in detail of Darwinism, it is
+not because this does not hold good of it as of the rest--but because
+this particular system has obtained such a position, is so much in the
+mouths of men, and has been made the basis of so many and such
+far-reaching consequences, that it is impossible to pass it by.
+
+Much the same may indeed be said even of the assumed fact of Organic
+Evolution underlying all Transformist theories. This does not affect the
+fundamental problems with which we are concerned, and leaving untouched,
+as it does, the question of the origin of Life it makes even less
+pretence than the cosmic-nebular hypothesis just spoken of to trace the
+operations of Nature to their ultimate source. It might therefore appear
+superfluous to devote to it so much attention as, if treated at all, it
+must needs demand.
+
+But, whatever may thus appear from the point of view of strict logic, it
+is abundantly evident that in common estimation the assumed fact of
+Organic transformation is the foundation-stone of Evolutionary systems
+of every kind. And not unnaturally; for here at last we have something
+with which Science can deal, strictly according to her own methods. If
+she knows, and can know, nothing from actual observation concerning the
+first beginnings of matter, of the cosmic nebula, or of life, it is
+quite otherwise with the history of living things since they first
+appeared, and with the phenomena of life as it exists and is propagated.
+Here are questions which are strictly scientific, forming the
+subject-matter of Pal�ontology and Biology, and these Sciences
+supplemented by others, such as Geology, Physical Geography, and
+Astronomy, furnish a mass of evidence bearing upon the subject of
+Organic Evolution. When therefore the great majority of men of Science,
+declare that the fact of genetic Transformism is established beyond the
+possibility of doubt, Evolutionists find themselves supplied with a
+plausible foothold on which to stand and rest their fulcrum, while, like
+Archimedes, they proceed to move the world.
+
+That men of Science generally thus agree, cannot be questioned, and
+although this agreement is by no means so universal as is popularly
+supposed, there is no doubt that were the question to be settled by
+enumeration of the authorities on either side, Transformism would win
+easily. It may also be freely acknowledged, that Transformism in general
+and Darwinism in particular are theories to which on _� priori_ grounds
+no exception need be taken, and that, so far at least as concerns their
+general scope, apart from the origin of Man, no one can reasonably
+start with a prepossession against them. Nay, we will go farther, and
+say that to our way of thinking it appears immensely more probable, that
+things should always have gone on as they go on now, by the operation of
+the same natural laws, and that specific forms should have been
+naturally produced, as individuals of a species are produced now, by
+generation,--rather than that not only repeated acts of specific
+creation, but any operations totally different from those we witness,
+should have occurred to interrupt, and as we should judge, to mar, the
+Law of Continuity.
+
+All this is true. But we are engaged on a scientific enquiry,--and if
+there be one principle more than another upon which Science insists, it
+is that we should prove all things, not by authority, but by
+evidence,--and that we should seek evidence, not in pre-conceived ideas
+as to what should be, but in observation of what is. Accordingly, while
+we are most ready to accept Transformism or Darwinism should we find
+solid reasons for doing so, we are bound, for the sake of Science, to
+demand unimpeachable proofs before subscribing to doctrines which are
+made responsible for so much.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Before proceeding farther it will be necessary to exhibit more in detail
+the exact character of the question we have to discuss.
+
+According to the celebrated "Formula" of Mr. Herbert Spencer--"Evolution
+is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;
+during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent
+homogeneity, to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and
+during which the contained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."
+It would be interesting to know what idea this definition conveys to
+many of those who are in the habit of quoting it, but, so far as organic
+Evolution is concerned, it must mean that whereas in the earlier and
+lower forms of life one organ performed many different functions in an
+imperfect manner, evolutionary development has gradually produced higher
+forms, in which each function has its special organ, by which it is more
+perfectly discharged. As an extreme instance of the former condition,
+the Hydra has but two organs, an outside which respires, and an inside
+which digests. If it be turned inside out these functions are reversed;
+the skin becoming the stomach, and the stomach the skin. Thus Evolution
+has been an ascending process from the lower to the higher, from the
+less to the more organized.
+
+Such, it must be added, has undoubtedly been the course of life. Amongst
+plants and animals alike, it began with lower and simpler forms, after
+which succeeded in due order others more developed and elaborately
+organized, the order in which they came upon the scene being much the
+same as that in which we should naturally arrange their specimens in a
+museum. Thus in the vegetable kingdom, first came such growths as
+sea-weeds and fungi, followed by ferns and club-mosses,--yews and
+pines,--and so through grasses, canes, and palms, to the highest group
+in which are included our forest trees and the bulk of our garden
+flowers. In like manner, the animal series,--to mention only leading
+groups of which evidence is found,--starting with almost structureless
+_Protozoa_, followed by such forms as starfish and sponges, worms,
+molluscs and crustaceans, has advanced to vertebrate creatures--fishes,
+amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,--and finally to man.
+
+Thus, in a quite intelligible sense, there has certainly been Evolution,
+or development,--that is to say, an orderly progression from lower types
+to higher, throughout the history of life on earth, from its
+commencement to the present time. But, this is not the point. Was such
+Evolution or development _genetic_? Was it wrought by descent with
+modification of form from form? _That_ is what we have to enquire. If
+this has not been so, there has been no Evolution in the sense intended
+by Evolutionists.
+
+According to their highest authority, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Evolution
+means "the production of all organic forms by the accumulation of
+modifications and of divergences by the addition of differences to
+differences."
+
+     Beyond all question [he adds] unlikenesses of structure gradually
+     arise among the members of successive generations. We find that
+     there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the
+     source of specific differences, a process which, though slow, does,
+     in time, produce changes--a process which to all appearance would
+     produce in millions of years any amount of changes.[176]
+
+The Transformist doctrine is, therefore, that one species of plants or
+animals, has in natural course grown out of another, through the
+aggregation of changes each exceedingly minute. Darwinism adds that the
+ruling principle of this process is Natural Selection. These are the
+points on which our enquiry turns, and we may conveniently commence with
+the second.
+
+
+
+
+XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+
+It must first be observed that special consideration of Mr. Darwin's
+theory is rendered necessary even more imperatively on account of the
+claims advanced on his behalf by others, than of those to which he
+himself made any pretence. Without question the idea prevails almost
+universally, that he has furnished a scientific explanation of all
+organic phenomena through the operation of purely natural laws, and has
+thus rendered obsolete the idea that any power beyond Nature is required
+in order to account for the totality of things, or that there are any
+features of the world which indicate the operation of intelligent
+purpose.
+
+That such ideas should be widely prevalent amongst those who, having no
+special acquaintance with the subject, must depend for their knowledge
+on the popularizers of Science, is scarcely wonderful, for such
+teachers, with scarcely an exception, so declare, and occasionally real
+men of Science lend the weight of their authority to similar
+statements.
+
+It will be sufficient to cite Professor Haeckel, who writes thus:[177]
+
+     It seemed to Kant so impossible to explain the orderly processes in
+     the living organism without postulating super-natural final causes
+     (that is, a purposive creative force) that he said, "It is quite
+     certain that we cannot even satisfactorily understand, much less
+     elucidate, the nature of an organism and its internal faculty on
+     purely mechanical natural principles--it is so certain, indeed,
+     that we may confidently say: It is absurd for a man even to
+     conceive the idea that some day a Newton will arise who can explain
+     the origin of a single blade of grass by natural laws uncontrolled
+     by design. Such a hope is entirely forbidden us." Seventy years
+     afterwards this impossible Newton of the organic world appeared in
+     the person of Charles Darwin, and achieved the great task that Kant
+     had deemed impracticable.
+
+It is quite impossible to understand how such an assertion can be made
+by any one who knows the facts. Not only did Mr. Darwin never profess to
+have achieved any thing of the kind,--he repeatedly and distinctly
+disclaimed and repudiated any such supposition. Thus at the very end of
+his life (August 28, 1881) he wrote concerning one who had spoken of him
+like Professor Haeckel:
+
+     He implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most
+     monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks, the more one feels
+     the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. If we consider the whole
+     universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of
+     chance.[178] The whole question seems to me insoluble.
+
+But it should not be necessary to appeal to such disclaimers in order to
+show how absolutely unwarrantable are the pretensions made on Mr.
+Darwin's behalf to have solved, or to have attempted to solve, the
+fundamental problems which scientific research unceasingly suggests but
+has never been able to elucidate. It should be quite sufficient to
+examine his theory as it actually is, and although its scope is
+immensely less ambitious than has been represented, it still occupies,
+even in its genuine form, a position of sufficient importance to
+challenge investigation.
+
+Mr. Darwin's famous and epoch-making book, published in November, 1859,
+was entitled _On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,
+or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_. In it
+he undertook to show how from one species[179] of animals or plants,
+another, quite distinct from it, may be derived by means of processes
+which go on in Nature every day, through the accumulation of minute
+differences occurring in successive generations, and guided to their
+collective result by the force of "Natural Selection." As man, he
+argues, has by means of selection been able to produce in a brief space
+such astonishing varieties among his domestic animals and plants--as
+dogs, pigeons, roses or apples,--Nature, with the practically unlimited
+ages of geological time at her disposal, must be able to produce far
+greater and more enduring transformations, through the accumulation of
+minute differences, such as those upon which man has worked,--if only a
+factor can be found which amid the infinity of diverse and discordant
+variations spontaneously occurring, could, like the breeder or the
+gardener, pick out those leading to one particular result, and thus
+secure its accomplishment. Such a force Mr. Darwin conceives is found in
+"Natural Selection," which he thus explains.
+
+The tendency of organic life, whether vegetable or animal, being to
+propagate itself enormously,--and the life-sustaining capacity of the
+earth being limited,--it necessarily follows that only a fraction of the
+creatures which are born can survive to maturity, and that while those
+best fitted to live will live, those less well fitted will die. Thus,
+there is set up a constant struggle for existence, in which every
+advantage, however slight, must tell, so that those possessing such
+advantages in one generation will be the parents of the next. But in the
+course of propagation, the offspring never exactly reproduce the parent
+form, from which they vary, some in one way some in another, and as some
+of these variations cannot help being advantageous to their possessors
+in the struggle, we have here the required factor for the production of
+new forms. Any thus beneficially equipped, (although the variation, and
+consequently the advantage, must in each instance be exceedingly
+slight,) will have the chances on their side against their less favoured
+fellows, whom in the long run they will supplant. And as their
+offspring, or some of them, will carry the profitable variation somewhat
+further, the stream of life will thus be set in such a direction as will
+ultimately bring about what might at first appear impossible
+metamorphoses.
+
+Thus, to take a simple and favourite illustration,[180] winged insects
+inhabiting an island far from other land, are liable to be blown out to
+sea and drowned. It is in consequence, an advantage to them to have
+their power of flight curtailed, or taken away, and consequently in such
+situations their wings are generally found to be so reduced as to permit
+little or even nothing in the way of flying. Or to take an example of
+another kind,[181] the extraordinary length of neck which characterizes
+the giraffe enables it to browse on the higher branches of trees
+inaccessible to other vegetable feeders, and thus gives it an advantage
+over them in times of drought and scarcity of fodder. It can accordingly
+be easily understood, how its present structure has resulted from
+gradual elongations of the neck, each conferring on its possessor a
+slight advantage.
+
+The work attributed to Natural Selection in such instances, though no
+doubt highly important, is comparatively facile, and it would be
+difficult to say that it could not be accomplished. But Mr. Darwin
+ascribes to the same factor, not merely such modification of existing
+structures, but the creation of entirely new mechanisms for specific
+purposes. We have, for instance, heard his description of the eye and
+its manifold "inimitable contrivances:" yet all these, he persuaded
+himself, might be thus accounted for. The idea, he confessed,[182] seems
+at first sight preposterous; yet, though not without much
+difficulty,[183] he succeeded in convincing himself, that given the
+rudest and most rudimentary form of eye to start with--no more than a
+nerve sensitive to light but incapable of forming an image--Natural
+Selection might develop therefrom, through an infinite series of
+gradations the inconceivably complex machine that is now found in the
+higher vertebrates,[184] and the totally different but equally
+marvellous organs of sight possessed by insects, crustaceans, and other
+creatures.
+
+In like manner, Mr. Darwin contended, might the most complex and
+wonderful instincts be generated. As an example may be cited that by
+which the hive-bee constructs its combs--of which he thus speaks:[185]
+
+     He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a
+     comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic
+     admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically
+     solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper
+     shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least
+     possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has
+     been remarked that a skilful workman with fitting tools and
+     measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the
+     true form, though this is perfectly effected by a crowd of bees
+     working in a dark hive.[186] Granting whatever instincts you
+     please, it seems at first sight quite inconceivable how they can
+     make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when
+     they are correctly made. But the difficulty is not nearly so great
+     as it at first appears: all this beautiful work can be shown, I
+     think, to follow from a few simple instincts.
+
+He accordingly proceeds to argue, that beginning with circular cells,
+like those of Humble Bees, and progressing through an intermediate form,
+circular where free, but with flat partition walls where two or more
+cells touch one another, it is quite possible to suppose that Natural
+Selection has effected the whole improvement, those insects which
+accomplished any advance towards more scientific workmanship, and thus
+made materials go further, having been able to secure a livelihood
+better than their competitors.
+
+Such in brief outline is the Darwinian system, which undertakes to
+account for all the alleged facts of Organic Evolution by means of the
+above factor, variously described as "Natural Selection," or the
+"Survival of the fittest in the Struggle for Existence." It should be
+remembered, though it is constantly forgotten, that it is this
+particular theory as to the working-cause of evolutionary
+transformations which is the essence of Darwinism. Mr. Darwin did not
+originate the idea of genetic transformism, which is almost necessarily
+suggested by the systematic development of life-forms to which Geology
+bears witness. Consequently, long before he came on the scene, the
+doctrine of transformation had been propounded, especially by Lamarck,
+and if it had met with no general acceptance, this was chiefly because
+no force was indicated which seemed to offer a satisfactory account of
+the mode in which the required changes could have been wrought. Such a
+force Mr. Darwin's "Natural Selection" was widely taken to furnish, and
+his theory was eagerly welcomed and adopted by those who only required
+such a basis on which to ground beliefs to which they were already
+predisposed, and Darwinism thus obtained that pre-eminent position
+which it still retains, at least in popular estimation.
+
+Two special arguments may here be mentioned, which, although they really
+apply to all systems of Organic Evolution, have obtained a prescriptive
+right to be quoted particularly in favour of Darwinism, their bearing on
+which is easily seen.
+
+The first is based on the frequent occurrence of "rudimentary,"
+"fragmentary," or "vestigial" structures in animals and plants, which,
+although now seemingly useless, or even harmful, to their possessors,
+may be assumed to have been of service to their ancestors, but under
+changed conditions to have been thrown out of work by Natural Selection,
+and atrophied by disuse. Such are--the splint-bones of the horse,
+representing lost digits,--the rudimentary legs of some whales and
+serpents,--the _mammae_ and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the
+vegetable kingdom,--the aborted pistil in male florets of some
+_compositae_,--the useless corolla of certain wind-fertilized flowers,
+as _plantago_, and indeed the whole floral apparatus of plants which,
+like Wordsworth's pet the Lesser Celandine,[187] seldom ripen their
+seeds, but depend on other methods of propagation. The other fact cited
+on behalf of Darwinism is unquestionably very striking. In the course of
+their embryonic development, and even in the initial stages of their
+life after birth, higher animals pass through various phases in which
+they exhibit the characteristics of lower forms. Thus all life starts
+from a cell, in which there is nothing to shew whether it is ever to be
+anything more than a cell, or is to evolve a plant or animal,--nor, in
+this latter case, what sort of animal it is to be--a mollusc, for
+instance, a frog, or a mammal. At a later stage[188] it is impossible to
+distinguish the embryos of lizards, birds, and mammals except by size.
+Even the human fetus at an early period bears vestiges of gill-clefts or
+arches, pointing to an aquatic existence. When the extremities come to
+be developed,[189] "The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet
+of birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the
+same fundamental form." The young of flat-fish such as soles and
+turbots, when they leave the egg are not flat, but shaped like ordinary
+fish, and they wear their eyes in the normal fashion, one on each side
+of their head, not both on the same side like their parents--whose form
+however they presently by degrees assume. Young lions and black birds
+are spotted, showing their affinity respectively to panthers and
+thrushes--and so on in numberless instances. All such features, it is
+assumed, indicate the _phylogeny_ of each animal, or the history of the
+race to which it belongs. As Professor Milnes Marshall succinctly put
+the matter:[190]
+
+     The phases through which an animal passes in its progress from the
+     egg to the adult are no accidental freaks, no mere matters of
+     developmental convenience, but represent more or less closely ...
+     the successive ancestral stages through which the present condition
+     has been acquired. Evolution tells us that each animal has had a
+     pedigree in the past. Embryology reveals to us this ancestry,
+     because every animal in its own development repeats this history,
+     climbs up its own genealogical tree.
+
+Such are not by any means the only instances in which the Darwinist can
+appeal to Nature for facts with which his theory well agrees, and which
+therefore so far furnish a persuasive argument in its favour; but these
+are perhaps the chief ones, and the best known, and may serve as
+representative of their class which it is impossible for us to examine
+in detail.
+
+It now remains to enquire how far, from the point of view of Science,
+with which alone we are concerned, the Darwinian hypothesis can make
+good its claim to our acceptance. When we proceed accordingly to examine
+the grounds upon which it rests, it must be confessed that as we do so
+it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how such a theory has
+been able to obtain such wide acceptance, especially on the ground that
+scientific evidence is in its favour.
+
+On the very threshold of any such enquiry lies a difficulty the gravity
+of which seems to be strangely overlooked. Darwinism by its own
+confession knows nothing of Origins, not even of the Origin of Species
+itself. There must be life already existing before Natural Selection has
+anything to select; there must be eyes and honey-cells of some kind,
+before they can be improved; there must be Species, before one can be
+transformed into another. Is it not evident, however, that the cause--of
+whatever kind it may be--which brought any of these into being, must
+have _something_,--not to say everything,--to do with the capacities and
+potentialities by which its future history is conditioned? But this
+supreme and vital factor Mr. Darwin entirely eliminates from his
+calculation. In his system, the initiating force has no more to do with
+the subsequent career of its productions, than has the gas which lifts a
+balloon with the direction in which it travels. It is not, on his
+theory, as the impulse which, besides raising from earth an arrow or
+rifle bullet, directs it to a goal, but, on the contrary, an organism
+once launched on its course is left to be driven hither and thither and
+twisted into this form and that, as clouds are by the wind. For the
+variations through which transformations are wrought, Darwin could find
+no better epithet than "fortuitous," and it is laid down by his
+staunchest disciples that if such variations be predetermined towards
+certain results, there is an end of Darwinism.
+
+It is not easy to understand how any theory can be deemed satisfactory
+which thus ignores the initial force, of whose existence and potency we
+have far clearer evidence than of any other.
+
+When we turn from its omissions to study Darwinism as it is, obviously,
+in the first place, still, more than forty years since it was given to
+the world, it remains only an hypothesis, based not upon observation or
+experiment but speculation. In no single instance, past or contemporary,
+is one species known to have originated from another. The fact upon
+which Mr. Darwin primarily relies is that of variation. Undoubtedly
+amongst both plants and animals the offspring are not mere slavish
+reproductions of their parents, as if cast in the same mould, but
+exhibit individual differences, working upon which in domesticated
+instances, man can by selection produce wonderful varieties, as has
+already been admitted. But, as M. de Quatrefages says,[191] this tells
+us no more than that species admit of variation; it does not prove that
+they are capable of transformation, which is the whole point. Certainly,
+such transformation has never within our knowledge been effected. No
+breeder or fancier has succeeded, or can hope to succeed, in producing a
+new species. Moreover, as was pointed out by a critic whose ability Mr.
+Darwin himself candidly acknowledged,[192] the range of variability as
+we find it in any species is strictly limited, and although at first it
+is easy,--in the case of some few animals or plants,--to make great
+changes in particular directions, by selective breeding, it becomes more
+and more difficult as we proceed to continue in the same line. If, for
+instance, in the case of pigeons, a bird can be produced in six years
+with head and beak only one-half the size of those whence the process
+started, are we to say that in twelve years their bulk will be reduced
+to a quarter, and in twenty-four to an eighth? No one could suppose
+anything so absurd. Mr. Darwin would answer, that he relies upon the
+vast periods of geologic time to produce alterations such as we cannot
+possibly attempt within the few years at our disposal. But, it is
+replied, no length of time will avail anything for such a purpose,
+unless there be some force to produce variations in the required
+direction, to the required extent. Such a force is not proved to
+exist--all the evidence is against it. Where art is most practised in
+improvement of breeds, or the obtaining of any peculiarities--as with
+the speed of racehorses, the size of toy-terriers, or the "points" of
+prize cattle, it becomes most strikingly apparent that we have reached a
+limit beyond which species will not vary. And until such a cause as we
+require is fully proved to exist, its supposed effects cannot be made
+the basis of scientific argument.
+
+     A given animal or plant, [says the Reviewer] appears to be
+     contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation; one individual
+     lies near one portion of the surface, another individual near
+     another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre. Any
+     individual may produce descendants varying in any direction, but is
+     more likely to produce descendants varying towards the centre of
+     the sphere, and the variations in that direction will be greater in
+     amount than the variations towards the surface. Thus a set of
+     racers of equal merit indiscriminately breeding will produce more
+     colts and foals of inferior than of superior breed, and the falling
+     off of the degenerate will be greater than the improvement of the
+     select (p. 282).
+
+Similarly M. Blanchard declares:[193]
+
+     All investigation and observation make it clear that, while the
+     variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in
+     very different degrees, yet in its most astonishing manifestations
+     it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass.
+
+And the facts of nature, as we know them, far from favouring the
+instability of species, exhibit a tenacity of form compelling us to
+treat them as practically immutable. Thus, as Mr. Carruthers points
+out,[194] in the notoriously variable genus _Salix_, or willow-tribe,
+which seems to be actively advancing towards a multiplication of its
+subdivisions, sub-genera, species, varieties, and hybrid forms,--one
+species is found, _S. polaris_, dating from before the Glacial Epoch,
+which has been driven from England and other lands, by climatic changes,
+to within the Arctic circle of both Hemispheres,--yet amid this stress
+of circumstances has preserved its specific identity, down even to the
+casual variations, which might be supposed to furnish the
+starting-points for new developments. Yet in this tribe, if anywhere,
+evidence of specific evolution might be looked for.[195]
+
+Other instances seem to show that even under new and trying conditions
+those creatures survive best which keep closest to the central family
+type, not those which diverge in any direction. Thus, of European
+sparrows introduced in America, Mr. Bumpus writes:[196]
+
+     Natural Selection is most destructive of those birds which have
+     departed most from the ideal type, and its activity raises the
+     general standard by favouring those birds which approach the
+     structural ideal.
+
+Variation supplies the raw material upon which Natural Selection is
+supposed to work. When we turn to examine the process by which its
+results should be produced, we find, quite apart from the above
+difficulties, a crop of others still more formidable.
+
+It must be remembered, that the variations on which Natural Selection
+must work are in each instance extremely minute, well-nigh
+infinitesimal. Mr. Darwin was as strongly opposed to the idea of Nature
+making sudden bounds, as to that of a predetermined course of
+development. But, he argued, an extra chance of living, however slight,
+must necessarily tell in the long run, the theory of probabilities
+giving results as certain as any others in mathematics, and, according
+to these, we may confidently say that, given sufficient time, the
+favoured individuals would infallibly distance their competitors.
+
+The impressiveness of such an argument depends upon its seemingly
+mathematical character, which is however wholly fallacious, for the
+probabilities are all the other way. It is perfectly true that a
+beneficial variation however slight will confer on its happy possessor a
+corresponding advantage in the struggle for life, as compared with each
+_individual_ of the non-favoured herd, but, as to that herd
+collectively, the chances would, on the contrary, ensure that _some_ of
+its members should outlive the favoured one. Let us even imagine the
+advantage of the latter to be very great, great enough to double his
+chances, so that the odds on his surviving each of his fellows will be
+two to one. Yet if there be a dozen of them to contend with, the odds
+will be six to one _against_ his surviving the lot. And what of the
+actual case of minutest benefits conferred by variation? In order to
+give them even an equal chance of survival, the numbers of those
+possessing such advantages must be large in proportion as the advantages
+themselves are small. Thus, if a variation increases the chance of life
+by one-thousandth part, so that the odds on its possessor are 1001,
+against 1000 on each non-possessor, yet unless the number of possessors
+be to that of non-possessors as 1,000 to 1,001, their collective chances
+will not even be equal. As it is quite absurd to suppose that casual
+variations could ever occur in such wholesale fashion, how can it be
+supposed that, were Natural Selection the only factor operating, minute
+advantages could be accumulated by variation even in the simplest cases?
+
+But it is also hard to suppose that in any actual case is the matter so
+simple as it appears to our limited comprehension. To take for instance
+the above example of the giraffe. It is very well to have a neck that
+will reach high-branches of a tree,--but this is not everything. For the
+mere prolongation of life, much else is required, fleet limbs to
+distance lions, and keen senses, sight, hearing, and smell, to give
+warning of the approach of human or other hunters, to say nothing of the
+extra strengthening of muscles and bones which increased size and weight
+demands. Unless, however, improvements in all these respects happened
+casually to concur in the same individual, which could scarcely happen,
+it is clear that each would militate against the others, for the
+survival of an individual beneficially developed in one respect, would
+tend to the extinction of other beneficial developments, possessed by
+individuals whom he overcame in the struggle for life.
+
+Even the case of the insular insects is by no means so plain as might at
+first sight appear. There can be no doubt that wings are of _some_
+advantage, or on no system could they be supposed to exist. Nor do their
+advantages cease because disadvantages outweigh them. If some insects
+are blown out to sea when flying, others will doubtless perish in one
+way or another because they cannot fly. It may even be that those which
+can fly _best_ will survive, as being able to make head against a breeze
+which overpowers others. Natural Selection will thus have many arrows in
+its quiver, some of which must reach the wrong objects.
+
+Still more clearly does this appear in the case of complex structures in
+which, if they were produced as Mr. Darwin supposes, variation must have
+hit simultaneously upon independent contrivances, without each of which
+all the others would be useless and confer no benefit at all. In the
+eye, for example, to mention but one or two of innumerable similar
+points, it would be of no avail to have a retina, even such as has been
+described, without a lens to throw an image upon it, set just at the
+proper distance, and provided with muscles to alter its shape according
+to the distance of the object. How can Natural Selection be even
+conceived to have set to work on such a task as this?
+
+It is still more fundamental to observe that, according to Mr. Darwin's
+own showing, Natural Selection is purely negative in its action. "If it
+does select, it selects for death and not for life."[197] It can
+originate nothing, but only destroy. All that it does for favoured races
+is to spare them while it sweeps away others, and the sole benefit they
+derive from it is to have more ample resources upon which to draw. But
+as for anything they possess in the way of structure or character, they
+must derive it entirely from themselves--Natural Selection can no more
+confer it, than the labourer who weeds a garden bed makes the flowers
+that grow there. Let it be imagined that the first human beings on
+earth, any number of thousand years ago, planted a garden, and
+determined to produce a rose, by eliminating every plant that did not
+show some promise of progress rose-wards. Let the gardeners have been
+endowed with acumen sufficient to detect every symptom of such a
+tendency, and let their operations have been carried on without
+interruption to this day,--it is obvious that if roses had resulted, it
+could only be because among the plants they allowed to remain there
+existed a rose-making quality of some kind, to which, and not to
+anything done by human art or skill, the result was due. It would
+likewise have to be supposed that there were infinite other
+potentialities latent in the original plants, as of evolving thistles,
+shamrocks, or leeks--all equally awaiting their opportunity. Selective
+action could effectually put such competitors out of the way; but in the
+way of developing a race it could but leave it entirely to itself.
+Precisely similar is the part played by Natural Selection, except that
+it must needs play it immensely more slowly,--and if no one can fancy
+that human agency could by any possibility grow roses unless from some
+stock predetermined to grow into a rose and nothing else, what grounds
+have we that can be called scientific for attributing to a blind
+struggle for life an incomparably greater potency? Nor does it avail to
+quote the immense extent of time which may be supposed to have been
+available. No more than Natural Selection has time by itself any
+creative power. We know on the contrary by experience, that when things
+are not controlled by some principle of order, the lapse of time serves
+only to make confusion worse confounded.
+
+Another consideration of prime importance is too frequently ignored. On
+Darwinian principles, each step in any development can be made, not
+because it leads to an advantageous result in the future, but only
+because it is itself advantageous. At each stage favoured individuals
+survive others because they are favoured here and now, not because, when
+the development they promote shall be completed, their remote
+descendants will be favoured. Hence it must, for instance, be possible
+to suppose, that all the intermediate forms between two extremes,
+whereof one is supposed to have originated the other, were, each in its
+day, so beneficial as to preserve their possessors at the expense of
+non-possessors. But can this possibly be even imagined?
+
+To take one example. We have heard, speaking of embryology, that the
+feet of lizards and the wings and feet of birds arise from the same
+fundamental form of limb, whence it is argued that birds and lizards are
+alike descended from a common sauroid, or lizard-like, ancestor, whose
+limbs in the case of the former class have developed into wings and into
+feet of a totally new type,--while scales were developing into feathers,
+and innumerable alterations of internal structure were simultaneously in
+progress. But if so, to confine our attention to one particular, it
+must be true that each of the innumerable minute gradations between the
+fore-limb of a lizard and the wing of a bird, was in its turn the best
+kind of member for a creature to possess, giving him a distinct
+advantage in the struggle for existence. Nothing, however, appears
+plainer than that this could not possibly have been the case. The limb
+shaping towards a wing would be a very clumsy and inefficient leg long
+before it got to the point at which it became of the slightest use for
+purposes of flight, that is to say before its alteration was accompanied
+by any utility whatever. We can neither imagine that creatures furnished
+with limbs of such intermediate forms could have been otherwise than
+hopelessly handicapped by them, nor do we find anywhere in the rocks any
+trace whatever of the innumerable series of modifications which would be
+needed to link by imperceptible gradations legs and wings together.
+
+It only serves to make the matter less intelligible, that there _are_
+found in Secondary strata some few relics of birds with decidedly
+saurian characteristics,[198] as the _Hesperornis_ and _Ichthyornis_ in
+the Chalk, and the _Arch�opteryx_, most ancient of fowls, lower still,
+in the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the
+_Arch�opteryx_ in addition has decidedly reptilian characters connected
+with its wings and tail. But none of them throw the slightest light upon
+the point we are now considering. In the case of all, the problem of
+flight has been completely solved. Their wings are no rudimentary
+structures half way between legs and wings, but as finished productions
+as those of to-day. As Professor Huxley acknowledges, if the skeletons
+of _Hesperornis_ and _Icthyornis_ had been found without their skulls,
+they would probably have been classed without more ado amongst existing
+birds. The latter "has, [he tells us,] strong wings, and no doubt
+possessed corresponding powers of flight." The wings of _Hesperornis_,
+he says, resemble those of our divers and grebes, and were probably
+used, like theirs, chiefly for swimming.[199] As for the _Arch�opteryx_,
+its reptilian features notwithstanding, it is a perfectly-appointed
+bird. As Sir Richard Owen testifies,[200] its wing, despite the
+peculiarities mentioned, is completely developed as to all essentials.
+Nor does even this member furnish the creature with its most bird-like
+characteristics,--but the keeled breast-bone, so intimately connected
+with the requirements of flight,--and, still more markedly, the feet.
+Professor Huxley writes: "The feet are not only altogether bird-like,
+but have the special character of the feet of perching birds; while the
+body had a clothing of true feathers."
+
+Thus, to whatever these Saurian birds may testify,--and the extreme
+importance of their evidence none will question--they no more serve to
+bridge the gulf between reptiles and birds, than a group of volcanic
+islets like the Azores bridges the Atlantic, for they supply no vestige
+of a continuous way from one term to the other. Rather, they do but
+enhance the mystery of the transformation, to the manner of which,
+despite their composite features, they furnish no clue.
+
+All such difficulties are enormously aggravated by a consideration
+which, obvious as it is, seems seldom to be considered. The arguments we
+commonly hear appear to imply that _one_ parent is sufficient to secure
+the transmission of a beneficial variation to the next generation. But,
+of course, the parent requires a mate, and unless this mate has chanced
+to hit on the same line of variation, it cannot be supposed that it will
+be transmitted. Seeing, however, the exceeding minuteness of these
+variations in each instance, they can avail nothing to bring together
+the right mates to perpetuate them. Two reptiles, for instance, are not
+the more likely to pair because their fore limbs have taken the first
+faint and distant step towards becoming wings, while in the vegetable
+kingdom, notwithstanding Erasmus Darwin's _Loves of the Plants_, the
+idea of any choice of partners is still more grotesque. The allotment of
+mates must therefore be left to Chance; and the results will follow the
+ordinary laws of probability. Accordingly, if we suppose so large a
+proportion as five per cent., or one in twenty, of any species to
+possess an advantageous variation,--only one in twenty of the
+individuals thus favoured will secure a similarly favoured mate,--for
+each will have nineteen wrong selections offered to him or her, for one
+right one. Only one pair in four hundred will therefore transmit the
+variation to five per cent. of _their_ offspring, or one in eight
+thousand of the species, and of these only one pair in
+a-hundred-and-sixty-thousand will make an advantageous match. Such is
+the inevitable consequence of leaving any definite result to Chance: and
+here it is that Natural Selection is found to betray the most fatal of
+all its deficiencies; for, whatever its advocates may say, it is Chance
+and Chance alone upon which it relies. Just because man can and does
+select the proper mates, is he able to produce by breeding the results
+to which Mr. Darwin appeals as evidence, that Nature having no such
+power of selection, must be able to produce results of which man cannot
+even dream.[201]
+
+Natural Selection is in truth no selection at all, that is just its weak
+point, which the title conferred upon it serves to hide. What are called
+its products owe no more to it than Wellington owed his generalship to
+the bullets which did not hit him at Seringapatam. If they are not
+determined to a particular development they can attain it only by
+Chance.
+
+Of Chance, enough has already been said. It is, however, worth our
+while to observe how constantly to the last Mr. Darwin was haunted by
+the consciousness that this was in reality the factor upon which his
+system must depend, and that it could not possibly account for much that
+he came across in nature. If, as he confessed, the sight of a peacock's
+tail-feather made him sick, it was just because its elaborate beauty, to
+which no commensurate advantage can be supposed to attach, forbade the
+notion that his theory could account for it. So, of another still more
+marvellous instance in which Nature exhibits artistic power, namely the
+ball-and-socket ornament on the wings of the Argus pheasant, he
+writes:[202]
+
+     No one, I presume, will attribute this shading, which has excited
+     the admiration of many experienced artists, to chance--to the
+     fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring matter. That these
+     ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many
+     successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to
+     produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one
+     of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of
+     chance daubs of paints made by a long succession of young artists,
+     not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+1. Basal portion of secondary wing-feather; nearest body, shewing first
+rudiment of "ocelli."
+
+2. Portion of secondary wing-feather near body, shewing "elliptic"
+ornaments.
+
+3. Part of secondary wing-feather, shewing developed "ocelli."
+
+Feathers from wing of Argus Pheasant, from Darwin's _Descent of Man_.]
+
+Nevertheless, Mr. Darwin proceeds to argue at considerable length that
+an explanation consistent with his theory is favoured by the occurrence
+on the same wings of designs exhibiting every stage of gradation from a
+mere spot to the finished ball-and-socket _ocellus_; in the same way as
+the tail feathers of a peacock advance from a mere sketch to the
+completed design. It is not easy, however, to understand in what way
+this is supposed to solve the difficulty and not vastly to increase it.
+That a finished artistic effect should be fortuitously produced at all
+would be incredible enough. That it should be worked up by Chance
+through a series of processes, each doing something towards its
+completion, is surely not less, but far more inconceivable.
+
+In such a mode of explanation, however, is exemplified a feature which
+must not be forgotten in discussing Darwinism,--namely the fatal
+facility with which seeming arguments can be procured on its behalf. As
+Mr. Mivart well remarks:[203] "The Darwinian theory has the great
+advantage of only needing for its support the suggestion of some
+possible utility, actual or ancestral, in each case--no difficult task
+for an ingenious, patient, and accomplished thinker." And our _North
+British_ Reviewer makes a similar comment: "The believer who is at
+liberty to invent any imaginary circumstances, will very generally be
+able to conceive some series of transmutations answering his wants."
+
+Or if, as in the above instance of the Argus' eyes, a series is actually
+found, it is even less difficult to take for granted that it can have
+but one significance; while such assumptions are too frequently
+accepted without hesitation or demur, although it would be no easy task
+to show that they rest upon any solid grounds. When, in addition, either
+Mr. Darwin himself or some of his leading partisans has declared that
+some unverified process has undoubtedly occurred, or that they see no
+reason to doubt its occurrence, or that nothing which we know precludes
+its possibility,--it appears to be widely supposed that something
+substantial is thereby added to the scientific evidence, and that the
+suppositions thus sanctioned may even rank as facts. But however such a
+method may avail to secure acceptance for a doctrine, it does nothing
+for its scientific value. Such a style, as Mr. Mivart says,[204] is
+calculated to impress only minds too easily dominated, and not prepared
+by special studies accurately to weigh the evidence put before them.
+
+Illustrations of this strange method of procedure are furnished in
+connexion with various points already mentioned. Thus, as we have seen,
+Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the origin of rational speech, by the
+conscious utterance of a significant sound by an unusually wise ape-like
+creature. In favour of this very large suggestion, Mr. Darwin has
+nothing more substantial to say[205] than that "it does not appear
+altogether incredible," which does not appear to take us very far.[206]
+Yet I have seen this described as an "idyllic scene" shedding an
+entirely new light on the subject. So again in regard of the evolution
+of the eye.[207] Having summarily enumerated the various stages of
+development exhibited by this organ as actually existing in various
+animals, Mr. Darwin goes on to say that when we remember how small the
+number of living forms must be in comparison with extinct, and the other
+gradations that may consequently have existed, "the difficulty ceases to
+be very great" in believing that Natural Selection has connected the
+most rudimentary with the perfect structure. Similarly, as to the
+cell-making instinct of the bee,[208] having postulated four several
+suppositions for which evidence is not forthcoming, he concludes: "By
+such modification of instincts ... I believe that the hive bee has
+acquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural
+powers."[209] Similar examples might be multiplied indefinitely.
+
+Not unfrequently the tone of such utterances is more imperious. Thus, of
+the descent of Man from some animal ancestor Mr. Darwin pronounces[210]
+"The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken," and
+again[211] "the possession of exalted mental powers is no insuperable
+objection to this conclusion" ... "It is only [p. 32] our natural
+prejudice which leads us to demur to this conclusion." He even goes so
+far as to declare that his view is forced upon every man who is not
+content to assume the mental attitude of a savage.[212]
+
+Argumentation of this character, which he finds common with Darwin to
+other Evolutionists, is judged by de Quatrefages to be one of the
+weakest and most misleading features of their systems.
+
+     Personal conviction [he writes],[213] mere possibility, are offered
+     as proofs, or at least as arguments in favour of the theory. Can we
+     admit their validity? Obviously not. The human mind can conceive
+     many things: is that a reason for accepting them all?... Obviously
+     more serious proofs are needed. After all, save where a
+     contradiction is involved, everything is _possible_.... If
+     adopting, under the shadow of Oken's great name, his principle of
+     the repetition of phenomena, a naturalist should maintain that each
+     of the planets has its own Europe, its England, and its Darwin
+     expounding to the Jovians and Saturnians the origin of species, I
+     do not quite see how one would set about showing him that he was
+     wrong. Unquestionably the thing is _possible_. Are we to draw the
+     conclusion that it is a fact?
+
+Again,[214] the same distinguished naturalist, having quoted Darwin's
+very elaborate explanation of a difficulty, remarks:
+     We see how with Darwin, as with his precursors, one hypothesis
+     necessitates another. But can he, at least, by means of these
+     subsidiary theories, these comparisons, these metaphors, account
+     for all the facts? No, he himself honestly confesses more than once
+     that he cannot. It is true that he adds "I am convinced that the
+     objections have little weight, and the difficulties are not
+     insoluble." But is this conviction of his a proof, or even an
+     argument?
+
+M. Blanchard likewise comments vigorously on this mode of argumentation.
+Speaking of the Mole and Darwin's explanation of its blindness, namely
+that having taken to living under-ground it lost its eyes through
+disuse--which he considers a most preposterous supposition,--M Blanchard
+continues:[215]
+
+     The realms of fancy are boundless; but the observer who is
+     concerned with realities can only have recourse to the facts of
+     science. Fossil remains discovered in very ancient strata show that
+     the underground animal of present times does not differ from his
+     geological counterpart. The Mole belongs to a very peculiar type,
+     and has no nearer European relatives than the Hedgehog and the
+     Shrew. Can we imagine a common ancestor of Shrews, Hedgehogs, and
+     Moles? On this point Mr. Darwin expresses no opinion,--which should
+     not be, for when confronted by forms clearly differentiated, he is
+     wont to extricate himself from difficulties with matchless
+     facility. The intermediate links, he will say, were doubtless less
+     fitted to live than were the others, and so have disappeared. After
+     _that_ the Evolutionists consider any one quite out of date who
+     does not consider himself entirely satisfied with so felicitous an
+     explanation.
+
+M. de Quatrefages denounces another fatal defect often observable in the
+method of proof.
+
+     Mr. Darwin frequently complains that our actual knowledge is
+     incomplete. But instead of discovering in our lack of precise and
+     extensive information a motive for caution, he appears to derive
+     from it only greater daring. Doctrines based on the instability of
+     species have often been combated by geologists and pal�ontologists.
+     In reply to their objections Darwin devotes a whole chapter to
+     shewing the imperfection of the geological record. "For my part,"
+     he concludes, "I look at the geological record as a history of the
+     world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect; of this
+     history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or
+     three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short
+     chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a
+     few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less
+     different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of
+     life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which
+     falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the
+     difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even
+     disappear."
+
+     On my part [continues M. de Quatrefages] I will ask whether such a
+     conclusion is the correct one. No doubt, Darwin is right in
+     refusing to certain naturalists the right to dogmatize on the
+     strength of uncompleted studies, or scanty and isolated
+     observations. Is he therefore entitled to allege as proofs on his
+     own behalf the very gaps of science, appealing to the lost volumes
+     and leaves of Nature's chronicle? Clearly not. But the slightest
+     reflection suffices to recognize that this appeal to the unknown,
+     so frankly evidenced in the above passage, lies at the root of all
+     argumentation analogous to that which I have tried to
+     describe--that of Maillet, Lamarck, and Geoffroy,[216] as well as
+     Darwin. Only the unknown, in sooth, can open the boundless region
+     of speculation, where the possible replaces the actual, and where,
+     despite the widest knowledge and the soundest intelligence, one
+     comes as by a fatality to find a conclusive proof on one's own
+     side, precisely in that of which we profess to know nothing.
+
+So again, speaking of a certain conclusion of Professor Haeckel's
+concerning the embryology of lemurs, which MM. Grandidier and Alphonse
+Edwards afterwards proved experimentally to be altogether erroneous, de
+Quatrefages writes:[217]
+
+     Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book
+     preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea
+     itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the
+     majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin
+     set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody
+     knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of knowledge,
+     and draw arguments from their very ignorance.
+
+In like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once.
+Thus:[218]
+
+     The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult
+     of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds,
+     tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of
+     species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable
+     barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be
+     no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However
+     an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced
+     somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have
+     spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results.
+
+And again:[219]
+
+     We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous
+     scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as
+     to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as
+     follows:--"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is
+     possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those
+     hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable." There is
+     little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually _have
+     been_.
+
+In no respect, moreover, have Darwin's followers more closely imitated
+their master than in the construction of such hypotheses, which would
+appear to constitute in the eyes of many the most important work of
+Science. Attention has very largely been diverted from Nature as
+actually existing, which seems to be studied more for the light it can
+be supposed to throw upon evolutionary history, than simply for itself,
+and it seems to be thought that to imagine the mode of an evolutionary
+process is equivalent to establishing the facts which that process
+supposes. By this method lengthy and learned papers are written
+concerning the transformation of one species into another, which in
+reality do no more than describe in minute detail all the changes which
+must have taken place, _if_ the said transformation really occurred.
+That Science is thus benefited, is not the opinion of some at least who
+are well entitled to speak on her behalf, for as the President of the
+Linnean Society recently observed,[220] as one grows older, it becomes
+more and more apparent that facts alone are of any serious interest, and
+that speculations however ingenious and attractive are best left to the
+constructive and destructive energies of the young. So too, a few years
+ago, the President of the Microscopical Society complained that interest
+in living creatures is largely supplanted by dead ones.[221]
+
+     We read much [he said] of the animal's organs: we see plates
+     showing that its bristles have been counted, and its muscular
+     fibres traced to the last thread; we have the structure of its
+     tissues analyzed to their very elements; we have long discussions
+     on its title to rank with this group or that; and sometimes even
+     disquisitions on the probable form and habits of some extremely
+     remote, but quite hypothetical, ancestor, who is made to degrade in
+     this way, or to advance in that, or who is credited with one organ
+     or deprived of another, just as the ever-varying necessities of a
+     desperate hypothesis require....
+
+There is another aspect of the question which must by no means be
+overlooked. It has to be assumed that Natural Selection, or the survival
+of the fittest in the struggle for existence, necessarily tends to the
+benefit of the _race_ and moreover to its farther development on the
+upward grade, towards a more perfect and more specialized
+organization;--in Mr. Herbert Spencer's words, to progression from a
+relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a relatively definite,
+coherent heterogeneity. But here many questions occur.
+
+In the first place, a consideration presents itself, which appears to
+furnish the most formidable of all difficulties in the way of Mr.
+Darwin's hypothesis. How can this struggle for existence be supposed to
+have any tendency to promote organic development to ever higher and more
+perfect types, in the orderly sequence which has in fact occurred? The
+"Survival of the fittest" means only the survival _of the fittest to
+survive_,--of such as can find means of living where others cannot.
+Unless it can be shown that increased complexity of organization
+necessarily brings with it such increased vitality, Natural Selection
+can do nothing for organic development. If the mere power of living be
+the only factor in the process, as on Mr. Darwin's showing it is, a man
+is only a more complicated and delicate machine for securing the same
+object which can equally well, or better, be attained by a mole, a
+cockroach, or a microbe. And who will say that, so far as this
+particular end is concerned, he is better equipped than creatures which
+all the resources of civilization are powerless to exterminate?
+
+That practical advantage in the struggle for existence must necessarily
+accompany increased specialization of organs, and thus produce a
+"higher" organization, was a prime point of Mr. Darwin's argument,
+though at the same time he found himself compelled to encumber it with
+qualifications which go very far to neutralize its force; for he had to
+explain the obvious fact that so many creatures which represent the
+lowest and least specialized forms of life, have survived down to our
+own time. Thus he writes:[222]
+
+     The degree of differentiation and specialization of the parts in
+     organic beings, when arrived at maturity, is the best standard, as
+     yet suggested, of their degree of perfection or highness. As the
+     specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural
+     selection will tend to render the organization of each being more
+     specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but that it
+     may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures
+     fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even
+     degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded
+     beings better fitted for their new walks of life.
+
+     By this fundamental test of victory in the battle of life, as well
+     as by the standard of the specialization of organs, modern forms
+     ought, on the theory of Natural Selection, to stand higher than
+     ancient forms. Is this the case? A large number of pal�ontologists
+     would answer in the affirmative; and it seems that this answer must
+     be admitted as true, though difficult of proof.
+
+That is to say, Natural Selection is just as ready to degrade as to
+elevate a creature, according to the actual requirements of the
+circumstances in which it is placed, and how far progress has been the
+rule, rather than stability or retrogression, is a question for
+geological history to determine. This we shall have to consider in our
+next chapter.
+
+It is likewise obvious that so far as the mere struggle for existence is
+concerned, a species each of whose individual members is but poorly
+furnished, may nevertheless flourish unimpaired on the mere strength of
+its fecundity. It is thus, says M. Blanchard,[223] that the lower forms
+of life continue to hold their own despite the enormous ravages to which
+they are subject. The herring, for example, affords food to all the
+fowls of the air and fish of the sea, over and above the myriads
+annually requisitioned by man. Yet its hosts show no sign of being
+exterminated or even reduced. Much the same is the case of the cod; but
+a tribe one individual of which has been known to produce nine million
+eggs does not require much in the way of coherent heterogeneity to
+ensure its survival.
+
+Thus it appears that of itself Darwinism affords no explanation whatever
+of the regular progression of life forms from lower to higher, to which
+the records of Nature bear witness, and which is the one solid fact
+suggesting the idea of Evolution.
+
+Such are some of the reasons which, on purely rational grounds, appear
+amply to justify those who decline to pledge their faith to Darwinism,
+in spite of the popularity it enjoys. But what is to be said of the
+phenomena cited as furnishing positive and unimpeachable evidence in its
+favour, which were mentioned above in our sketch of its main features?
+
+First as to the rudimentary, fragmentary, or vestigial organs so common
+in Nature. These, it is said, being of no possible advantage to their
+possessors, and often a serious disadvantage, can be explained only by
+supposing that they were serviceable in the past to the ancestral race
+whence these possessors are derived, and have since been superseded by
+other modifications of structure, so as to dwindle away by disuse. This,
+no doubt, seems a very plausible explanation, but it does not follow
+that we ought immediately to adopt it as a certainty, instead of
+setting ourselves to examine how it accords with all the facts. Nothing
+is more dangerous and less scientific than to be in a hurry to conclude
+that everything is certain which seems to ourselves probable, especially
+if it suits a theory of our own. Unfortunately, this law is too
+frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance. In the
+present instance, Professor Haeckel himself furnishes an example. He is
+quite sure that the rudimentary structures can have but one
+significance, and that they are fatal to the idea of purpose in Nature,
+the object of his special aversion, and so he has proposed a new term,
+"Dysteleology," to embody this idea, of which he says,[224]
+
+     _Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness_ [is] the name I
+     have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of suppressed and
+     degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of the body; one of the
+     most important and most interesting branches of comparative
+     anatomy, which, when rightly estimated, is alone sufficient to
+     refute the fundamental error of the teleological and dualistic
+     conception of Nature, and to serve as the foundation of the
+     mechanical and monistic conception of the universe.
+
+It will be sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's remarks upon this
+passage, taken from the very laudatory review he wrote of the work in
+which it occurs.[225]
+
+
+     Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,
+     "Dysteleology," for the study of the "purposelessnesses" which are
+     observable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of
+     rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,
+     that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut
+     two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that
+     useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral
+     rudiments of toes in the foot of a horse place us in a dilemma.
+     For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which
+     case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form
+     since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or
+     they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no
+     use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but stronger
+     argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even
+     functional mammary glands in male mammals.... There can be little
+     doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the
+     remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet
+     it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male
+     organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its
+     dysteleological value is gone.
+
+In later editions Professor Huxley further observed: "The recent
+discovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a
+warning to all speculators about useless organs."[226]
+
+It seems, therefore, the wiser part to refrain from basing any vital
+conclusions upon these organs until we can assure ourselves that our
+knowledge warrants our so doing. As the same Professor Huxley intimated,
+it might be well for pal�ontologists, and doubtless for biologists
+likewise,[227] "To learn a little more carefully that scientific '_ars
+artium_,' the art of saying 'I don't know.'"
+
+So again as to the phenomena of embryology. No doubt they are very
+striking and impressive. That the most highly developed creatures, and
+man himself, should in the first stages of existence exhibit the
+characteristics of lower forms, is an exemplification of development no
+less signal than the succession of ascending types witnessed to by the
+rocks. It is not easy to see, however, why it should be taken for
+granted that this can only signify genetic descent from all such forms,
+and that these embryo animals are engaged in climbing up their
+genealogical trees. Yet this is usually assumed as a matter of course,
+and any one who ventures to question the validity of such an inference,
+must be prepared to find himself accused of dogmatizing.
+
+And yet, after all, upon what grounds does the assumption rest? That
+such a recapitulation of racial experiences forms no essential feature
+of Evolution is sufficiently evident from the case of the vegetable
+world,--for plants do not climb _their_ genealogical trees, or pass in
+the seed through a series of botanical phases. And as to animals, since
+through all varieties of form, each always arrives at the required term,
+it is obvious that, apart from any archaic associations, and on
+Darwinian principles themselves, these forms must be the best for the
+purpose at each respective stage,--perhaps the only ones by which the
+term could be reached. It is therefore, to say the least, quite
+conceivable, that we have here the whole explanation and need go no
+further.
+
+In certain instances this obvious consideration is strikingly
+illustrated. Thus the salamander, an Amphibian of the newt family,
+brings forth its young in adult condition without gills.[228] But
+previously to birth they have gills relatively large. The experiment
+having been tried of bringing some of them forth by artificial means
+before their time, and placing them in water, the first thing they did
+was to cast off these big gills, which were speedily replaced by new
+ones of much smaller size, and evidently better suited for the work
+required, as they lasted as long as a fortnight.
+
+Here, in the first place, it is quite impossible to suppose that the
+large gills would continue to appear unless they were of advantage
+during the period of gestation. It is equally evident that it is not
+from a previous aquatic condition that they are inherited, for in such a
+condition they are useless. Finally, as Mr. Mivart observes, the new
+gills, suitable for unwonted conditions, were developed "not in a
+struggle for existence against rivals, but directly and spontaneously
+from the innate nature of the animal."
+
+This view of the matter commended itself on mature consideration to so
+ardent an evolutionist as Carl Vogt, with whom we may couple M. de
+Quatrefages, who cites his words with approval as follows:[229]
+
+     It has been laid down as a fundamental law of biogenesis that
+     ontogeny (the development of the individual) and phylogeny (that of
+     the race) must exactly correspond.... This law which I long held as
+     well founded is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of
+     embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own
+     conditions suitable to themselves, very different from those of
+     adults.
+
+"In a word," M. de Quatrefages continues, "the learned Genevan professor
+rightly considers that, 'The ontogenesis of all organic beings without
+exception, is the normal result of all the various influences which
+operate upon such beings.'"
+
+But it must, moreover, be noted that the story which embryology can be
+made to tell is by no means so plain as we might easily be led to
+suppose.
+
+Thus, although snakes are held to be descended from lizards, and some of
+them have rudimentary legs even in the adult stage, others have no trace
+of limbs even in the egg, while they _have_ vestiges of gills, and thus
+would seem to be visibly linked to ancient water-dwelling ancestors, and
+not to far more recent land-dwellers. Again;[230] Amphibians (frogs,
+newts and the like) agree in some respects, as to the development of the
+germ, with mammals, differing in the same respects from reptiles and
+birds. But reptiles and birds are supposed to be a more recent
+development than Amphibia, and therefore should intervene between them
+and mammals on the genealogical tree. Moreover the eggs of one group of
+Amphibians are found to exhibit some remarkable resemblances to those of
+reptiles and birds, from which it would thus appear to have derived
+them, although on other grounds it is declared to be of an older stock
+than theirs. Most frogs, toads, and newts come out of the egg as
+tadpoles, furnished with gills and so breathing in water. This should
+signify that these creatures are descended from fish or fishlike
+ancestors. But one frog (_Rana opisthodon_) is never a tadpole even in
+the egg, from which he gets out by means of a special opener on his
+snout which he has somehow acquired. On the other hand certain
+newts[231] breed as tadpoles instead of in their mature form, which
+looks like an attempt to climb down the tree instead of up.
+
+It will be remembered that the latter phrase was that used by Professor
+Milnes Marshall. Yet even he expressed himself strongly concerning the
+exaggerations of Professor Haeckel on this subject. In his review of
+Haeckel's _Anthropogenie_,[232] after observing that many descriptions
+of human embryology have been based on observations of dogs, pigs,
+rabbits, or even chickens and dogfish, he thus continued regarding the
+book before him:
+
+     A student who relied on Professor Haeckel's description, would
+     obtain an entirely erroneous idea of the development of the human
+     embryo.... It is a matter for great regret that a book of 900
+     pages, bearing such a title, should be allowed to appear, in which
+     the account of the actual development of the human embryo is so
+     inadequate or even erroneous.
+
+Far more fundamental, however, is a remark of Mr. Mivart's, that if, as
+Darwinians say, the development of the individual is an epitome of that
+of the species, the latter must like the former be due to the action of
+definite innate laws unconsciously carrying out definite preordained
+ends and purposes. For although cells or embryos may be
+indistinguishable from one another, and may appear to us identical in
+constitution, their differences are absolute. Each is determined to be
+one sort of animal and no other, and can live at all only on condition
+of developing towards the prescribed form.--Therefore, whatever evidence
+the embryonic forms may be supposed to afford in support of Evolution,
+they have nothing in common with the haphazard process of Natural
+Selection.
+
+And here again Professor Huxley found himself obliged to enter his
+_caveat_, and to intimate his opinion that some of his friends were
+inclined to build too confidently upon this foundation. As his
+biographer Professor Weldon writes in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_:
+
+     Darwin had suggested an interpretation of the facts of embryology
+     which led to the hope that a fuller knowledge of development might
+     reveal the history of all the great groups of animals at least in
+     its main outlines. This hope was of service as a stimulus to
+     research, but the attempt to interpret the phenomena observed led
+     to speculations which were often fanciful and always incapable of
+     verification. Huxley was keenly sensible of the danger attending
+     the use of a hypothetical explanation, leading to conclusions which
+     cannot be experimentally tested, and he carefully avoided it.... In
+     the preface to the _Manual of the Comparative Anatomy of
+     Invertebrated Animals_, he says: "I have abstained from discussing
+     questions of �tiology,[233] not because I underestimate their
+     importance, or am insensible to the interest of the great problem
+     of Evolution, but because, to my mind, the growing tendency to mix
+     up �tiological speculations with morphological generalizations
+     will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion."
+
+Accordingly, Huxley himself based his faith in Evolution on
+pal�ontological evidence, and attempted to decide the precise course it
+had followed only "in the few cases where the evidence seemed to him
+sufficiently complete." This line of enquiry we have still to pursue,
+but meanwhile, it is evident that the phenomena we have been
+considering, failing to meet the approval of so thorough-going an
+Evolutionist as he undoubtedly was, cannot be said to furnish convincing
+scientific evidence in favour of Darwinism.
+
+It will be asked how it comes to pass, if the Darwinian system really
+lies open to so many objections, that it occupies so large a place in
+scientific estimation. To this we must reply that, in spite of its great
+name, its success has throughout been popular rather than truly
+scientific, and that as time went on it has lost ground among the class
+of men best qualified to judge. Evolutionists there are in plenty,--but
+very few genuine Darwinists, and amongst these can by no means be
+reckoned all who adopt the title, for not a few of them--as Romanes and
+Weismann--profess doctrines which cannot be reconciled with those of
+Darwin himself. Meanwhile, an increasing volume of scientific opinion
+sets definitely against Darwinism as an adequate explanation of the
+philosophy of life, and falls into the view expressed long ago by
+Charles Robin[234] who, as a freethinker, had no antecedent objections
+against it, "Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of
+probabilities without proof, and of attractive explanations without
+demonstration."
+
+It would be tedious to cite testimonies at length, but, in addition to
+M. de Quatrefages who has made a full and careful study of the whole
+question, [_Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais_, and _Les Emules
+de Darwin_] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [_La
+vie des �tres anim�s_], Wigand [_Der Darwinismus und die
+Naturforschung_, etc.], Wolff [_Beitr�ge zur Kritik der darwinschen
+Lehre_], Hamann [_Entwicklungslehre und Darwinismus_], Pauly [_Wahres
+und Falsches an Darwins Lehre_], Driesch [_Biologisches Zentralblatt_,
+1896 and 1902], Plate [_Bedeutung und Tragweite des Darwinschen
+Selektionsprincip_], Hertwig [_Address to Naturalist Congress_,
+_Aachen_, 1900], Heer [_Urwelt der Schweiz_], K�lliker [_Ueber die
+darwin'sche Sch�pfungstheorie_], Eimer [_Entstehung der Arten_], Von
+Hartmann [_Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus_], Schilde
+[_Antidarwinistisches im Ausland_], Du Bois-Reymond [_Conference_,
+August 2, 1881, etc.], Virchow [_Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, etc.],
+N�geli [_Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre_],
+Schaafhausen [_Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen_], Fechner [_Ideen zur
+Sch�pfungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen_], Jakob [_Der
+Mensch_, etc.], Diebolder [_Darwins Grundprinzip_, etc.], Huber [_Die
+Lehre Darwins kritisch betrachtet_], Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer,--all
+of whom either reject Darwinism altogether, or admit it only with fatal
+reservations.
+
+Special weight must attach to the adverse verdict of M. Fabre, styled by
+Darwin himself "that inimitable observer," who declares that he cannot
+reconcile the theory with the facts he encounters.[235]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one or two of our own countrymen, whose
+utterances will enable us to form an opinion as to the true scientific
+status of the doctrine.
+
+We may begin with Huxley, the great popular champion of Darwinism, who
+did more than any other man to spread the new doctrine. Yet, strange to
+say, he seems never to have really accepted its fundamental tenet
+himself, always appearing very shy of Natural Selection, and carefully
+abstaining from committing himself to any responsibility for it. Thus in
+his treatise on _Man's Place in Nature_, he thus explains his position
+in its regard:
+
+     Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent
+     with any biological fact; on the contrary, if admitted, the facts
+     of Development, of Comparative Anatomy, of Geographical
+     Distribution, and of Pal�ontology, become connected together, and
+     exhibit a meaning such as they never possessed before; and I, for
+     one, am firmly convinced, that if not precisely true, that
+     hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for
+     example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the
+     planetary motions. But for all this, our acceptance of the
+     Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+     chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and
+     plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock
+     are fertile with one another, the link will be wanting. For, so
+     long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do
+     all that is required of it to produce natural species.
+
+This missing link, like various others, has never been supplied, and in
+consequence Professor Huxley never abandoned his attitude of reserve. On
+the contrary, when, in 1880, he delivered an address to celebrate "the
+Coming of Age of the _Origin of Species_" he discharged the task without
+once mentioning Natural Selection, which is to that work as the Prince
+of Denmark is to _Hamlet_.
+
+But there is one passage in the said address, which deserves to be
+specially remembered:
+
+     History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to
+     begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now
+     stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty
+     years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the
+     present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of
+     the _Origin of Species_, with as little reflection, and it may be
+     with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries,
+     twenty years ago, rejected them.
+
+In 1886, Professor Romanes pronounced as follows:[236]
+
+"At present it would be impossible to find any working naturalist who
+supposes that survival of the fittest is competent to explain all the
+phenomena of species-formation."
+
+As to the actual position now occupied in Scientific opinion by Mr.
+Darwin's hypotheses, we may content ourselves with the declaration of
+Professor S. H. Vines in his Presidential address to the Linnean
+Society, May 24, 1902.
+
+     1. It is established that Natural Selection, though it may have
+     perpetuated species, cannot have originated any.
+
+     2. It is still a mystery why Evolution should tend from the lower
+     to the higher, from simple to complex organisms.
+
+     3. The facts seem to admit of no other interpretation than that
+     variation is not [as Darwin supposed] indeterminate, but that there
+     is in living matter an inherent determination in favour of
+     variation in the higher direction.
+
+That is to say, Darwin's _Origin of Species_ does not explain the Origin
+of Species; and as to the laws which govern Evolution we can be sure
+only that they are not those which he assigned.
+
+In like manner, Sir Oliver Lodge pronounces:[237]
+
+     Take the origin of species by the persistence of favourable
+     variations; how is the appearance of these same favourable
+     variations accounted for? Except by artificial selection not at
+     all. Given their appearance, their development by struggle and
+     inheritance and survival can be explained; but that they arose
+     spontaneously, by random changes without purpose, is an assertion
+     which cannot be made.
+
+We are thus in a position to form our own judgment as to the claim made
+on behalf of Mr. Darwin, with which we started this chapter--namely,
+that he has eliminated all mystery from the organic world by the
+discovery of natural mechanical laws by which all its operations are
+governed. It is, indeed, difficult to understand how Darwinists
+themselves can suppose their system to make any such claim, for, as M.
+Paul Vignon truly observes,[238] "La science darwinnienne s'imaginait
+avoir triomph� du Sphinx, alors qu'elle avait simplement d�compos� le
+probl�me dans une monnaie d'�nigmes moins r�barbatives en apparence." As
+has been said, it is far more on account of the vast consequences
+professedly based upon it, as a sure foundation stone, than for its own
+sake, that it has seemed advisable to devote so much attention to the
+study of Darwinism, quite apart from which the whole question of organic
+Evolution still demands consideration.
+
+It seems far more just to conclude with M. Fabre:[239]
+
+     Let us acknowledge that in truth we know nothing about anything, so
+     far as ultimate truths are concerned. Scientifically considered
+     nature is a riddle to which human curiosity can find no answer.
+     Hypothesis follows hypothesis, the ruins of theories are piled one
+     on another, but truth ever escapes us. To learn how to remain in
+     ignorance may well be the final lesson of wisdom.[240]
+
+
+
+
+XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+
+Leaving the field of speculation and "�tiology," we have now to enquire,
+not to what causes organic Evolution may be attributable, but how far it
+can be shewn to have actually occurred. This can be learnt only from the
+history of life upon earth as disclosed by the evidence of pal�ontology,
+or the geological record, and we are thus brought to the investigation
+of that evidence, by which alone, as Professor Huxley agrees, can the
+truth about Evolution be scientifically or satisfactorily established.
+In his address recently mentioned on occasion of the twenty-first
+birthday of the _Origin of Species_, having spoken of various advances
+of our knowledge, as in comparative anatomy and embryology, which had
+helped to win acceptance for transformist doctrines, he thus continued:
+
+     But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove
+     dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence
+     in favour of evolution can be furnished only by pal�ontology. The
+     geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must,
+     when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a
+     negative answer; if evolution has taken place, there will its mark
+     be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.
+
+This is common sense. Evolution can claim to be a scientific truth, only
+so far as clear evidence is forthcoming that Evolution there has been.
+If the geological record be sufficiently complete to prove or disprove
+its claims, the question is settled for ever. If, on the other hand, the
+record be not complete enough for a conclusive verdict, it is, at least,
+hard to understand the grounds of such a statement as that the doctrine
+of Evolution has long since passed beyond the stage of discussion among
+scientific thinkers;[241] or that of Professor Marsh, that to doubt
+Evolution is to doubt Science; or of Professor Huxley himself[242]--"So
+far as the animal world is concerned, Evolution is no longer a
+speculation, but a matter of historical fact."
+
+This historical enquiry is accordingly all-important, and it is one
+which should be easy to undertake without any prepossessions, for it is
+hard to see upon what _� priori_ grounds these could rest. That there
+has been Evolution in one sense of the term is obvious,--that is to say,
+development of organic types from lower to higher forms, from the
+sea-weed or fungus to the oak or the rose, from the star-fish or the
+coral-insect, to the eagle or to man. The question is, not whether there
+has been such a progressive succession of forms, but whether one form
+has proceeded from another _genetically_, being produced in the same
+manner as individuals of a species now are. That this has been the case,
+as Professor Huxley tells us in the same address, is the cornerstone of
+evolutionary teaching. He appears indeed to restrict Evolution within
+the limits of classes and groups, but such restriction is so contrary to
+all his principles that the words which seem to imply it can scarcely be
+taken as having any definite significance. Should the appearance of
+different classes and groups require to be severally accounted for, we
+should be landed back in the system of separate creations against which
+he is never tired of inveighing.
+
+     The fundamental doctrine of all forms of the theory of evolution
+     applied to biology [he says] is that the innumerable species,
+     genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is
+     peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group,
+     from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of
+     descent.
+
+And, holding as he does that pal�ontology furnishes the necessary
+evidence, he thus continues:
+
+     And, in the view of the facts of geology, it follows that all
+     living animals and plants are the lineal descendants of those which
+     lived long before the Silurian epoch.
+
+Here is a plain issue, and one, as has been said, to be discussed
+without prejudice. That the innumerable forms of organic life should
+thus have been genetically derived one from another, is no more
+difficult to conceive than that they should have come into existence at
+all. Moreover, it appears to our minds almost a first principle that
+natural law must suffice to account for the phenomena of nature from
+beginning to end, and that any system is self-condemned which finds
+anywhere in these phenomena evidence of a non-natural, or supernatural,
+interposition. Has not such a theologian as Suarez, following St.
+Augustine, laid it down as an axiom[243] that God does not directly
+interfere with the operations of Nature, when He can effect His purposes
+through natural causes? Undoubtedly, too, it is difficult for our minds
+to imagine in what way, except through genetic evolution, the successive
+production of more and more developed types could be effected.
+
+But, as has before been observed, what seems to us probable is not
+therefore proved to be true. What we want are facts, and by facts we
+must be ready to abide. At the same time, it is not very easy to
+understand the supreme importance which evolutionists generally appear
+to attach to the descent of all living creatures from some _one_
+original, and their abhorrence of the idea that the power, whatever it
+was, which first produced life, may have operated repeatedly, at
+different epochs, to repeat the production. It seems to be assumed that
+this must imply "miracle" and interruption of the continuity of Nature,
+to admit which is irrational and unscientific. But since life did
+unquestionably once originate somehow, which Science makes no attempt to
+deny, why should it be so improper to suppose that it originated more
+than once, at various times and in various forms, and that,
+consequently, genetic descent with modification, or "Evolution," is not
+the explanation of typic development? As Sir J. W. Dawson writes[244]
+concerning the oyster tribe, whereof two species are found in the Coal
+Measures (one European and the other American), and a continuous
+succession of species ever since:
+
+     All these species may have proceeded from one origin, by descent
+     with modification, or, on the other hand, the same causes which led
+     to their origination in the Carboniferous may have operated again
+     and again.
+
+It must, however, be remembered that, if the theory of genetic descent
+with accumulation of minute modifications be the true explanation of the
+production of new forms, it necessarily follows, that could a complete
+record be forthcoming of the ancestry of any actual species, there would
+be found in that pedigree no distinction of species or genera, for no
+sharply marked lines of limitation would be discoverable. It would be
+like the case of a man who had been photographed every hour of his life
+from birth to old age;--immense though the difference might be between
+the two extremes, the gradations of change would at all points pass as
+imperceptibly into one another as do the phases of the moon. This
+consideration is both fundamental and obvious, yet it would seem to be
+almost universally ignored. It appears to be thought that, in order to
+demonstrate the fact of evolution, all that is needed is to find a form
+here and there, in some sense intermediate between others,--like the
+reptilian birds already mentioned. This would imply that the course of
+Evolution must be like that of an army, making long marches from point
+to point, and traceable only by the remains of its camp-fires: whereas
+it should be as that of a glacier continuously creeping on, and leaving
+its tracks at one point as much as another. What are wanted, therefore,
+as evidence for Evolution, are not isolated specific forms uniting some
+characteristics of those which they are supposed to connect,--as
+Nelson's men-of-war form a stepping-stone between the vessels of the
+Norsemen and the ironclads of the present day,--but a series sufficient
+to show, or at least to indicate, that all changes have been gradual and
+insensible, without the introduction at any point of a new element. To
+pursue the illustration, such a new element would be gunpowder or steam
+in the evolution of the battle-ship, for by no mere development could
+bows or javelins produce a cannon, or sailing ships a steamboat.
+
+Therefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches
+completeness, its testimony,--if it is to be in favour of
+Evolution--must tend more and more in this direction, and unless, in
+some instance at least, clear evidence be discoverable of the melting of
+one form into another, it cannot possibly be said that we have
+sufficient proof that such a process ever occurred. Mere graduated
+resemblance of isolated forms does not necessarily imply such
+transmutation, as we see for example in the methodical progression of
+shape, exhibited by various crystals, and even more remarkably in the
+affinities which we can recognize among what we know as elementary
+substances.
+
+There is another important point to be borne in mind. According to the
+teaching of Evolutionists such as Darwin or Haeckel,[245] every Species
+has originated from a single ancestor,--or, as they should rather say,
+from a single pair.
+
+If this were so, it would necessarily follow that every new form,
+originating in some particular spot of earth, would very gradually
+spread thence to other regions, fighting its way along. As Mr. Darwin
+acknowledges,[246] "The development by this means (i.e. Natural
+Selection) of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one
+progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the
+progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants."
+
+Of this gradual spread of new types there should, at least in some
+cases, be some pal�ontological evidence.
+
+It is likewise by no means easy to understand how species thus generated
+could stand solitary and isolated from kindred forms in the records of
+the earth. The pair of individuals which started a new persistent
+group,--its members all stamped with the same specific characters, while
+all around were in a state of flux and divergence,--differed from their
+immediate ancestors, as we have seen, only infinitesimally. They can
+have differed no more from many of their contemporaries, for all the
+lines of descent must ramify afresh in each generation, and so form a
+web rather than anything like a line. It is not very easy to understand
+how a pair here and there struck root and founded a species, while the
+thousands which jostled them round about failed to do so, for the others
+which survived longest must be supposed to have resembled them most
+nearly, and therefore to have participated in their advantages. At
+least, we should expect to find around them the d�bris of the multitude
+they vanquished in the struggle for existence.
+
+We are told, moreover, that, with hardly an exception, the organic forms
+found in a fossil state must be supposed to be the last of their
+special line of development, which terminated in them; so that neither
+can they be claimed as the direct ancestors of any other forms, fossil
+or living, nor can any others which are actually known be claimed as
+their progenitors. The genealogies supplied for almost all known
+species, extinct or existing, are admittedly conjectural, and as in the
+most famous instance of all, namely the supposed common ancestor of
+simians and men, the links are persistently "missing." Thus M. de
+Quatrefages, speaking of the human pedigree as set forth by Professor
+Haeckel, writes thus:[247]
+
+     All species, existing or extinct, are said to have been preceded by
+     _ancestral forms_ which have disappeared without leaving the
+     slightest vestige behind them. The _amphioxus_ itself, which more
+     than any other realizes the type of the group it represents, was
+     preceded, according to Haeckel, by the _provertebrate_, which no
+     man has ever seen, but of which, nevertheless, the Jena professor
+     gives us a figure, and describes the anatomy.
+
+Thus the number of forms postulated by the theory of genetic Evolution,
+must have been enormous beyond conception, in comparison with those
+belonging to the numerically insignificant groups which formed the mere
+extremities of branches on the genealogical tree.
+
+This being premised, we must ask what Geology has to tell us on the
+subject, and it will be well to begin by briefly recalling the main
+features of the geological record.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The stratified rocks comprising the crust of the earth, in which fossil
+plants and animals are found embedded, have evidently been formed at
+successive periods, chiefly by the agency of water, each formation
+having begun as a sediment like the mud or ooze at the bottom of our
+oceans and seas. Geological investigation has proved that the
+chronological order of the strata thus deposited can be satisfactorily
+determined, and they are found to divide themselves, in respect of the
+organisms they contain, into three great series, lying above the _Azoic_
+(or lifeless) rocks, older than them all.
+
+These series, beginning from the bottom, in which order we shall have to
+trace their history, are most conveniently named _Primary_, _Secondary_,
+and _Tertiary_, otherwise termed respectively, _Paloeozoic_ ("ancient
+life"), _Mesozoic_ ("middle life"), and _Kainozoic_ ("recent life").
+Each of these again, contains various formations, or as we may call them
+volumes of its chronicle, each of which has its fixed place in order of
+sequence.
+
+Thus, always proceeding from below upwards, in the _Primary_ series,
+commencing with the _Laurentian_, we find successively the _Huronian_,
+_Cambrian_, _Silurian_, _Devonian_ or _Old Red Sandstone_,
+_Carboniferous_, and _Permian_.
+
+In the _Secondary_, the lowest formation is the _Triassic_ or _New Red
+Sandstone_, followed by the _Jurassic_ or _Oolite_, and the _Cretaceous_
+or _Chalk_.
+
+Finally the _Tertiary_ has three main divisions; the _Eocene_, or "dawn
+of the recent," _Miocene_, or "less recent," and _Pliocene_, or "more
+recent."
+
+Above these comes the series now in progress, variously called,
+_Quaternary_, _Post-Tertiary_, and _Pleistocene_, or "most recent."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It seems advisable to begin our investigation with the vegetable
+kingdom, as its classification being comparatively simple, the essential
+points of its development are easily followed. We cannot do better than
+start with the summary of its main divisions furnished by Mr.
+Carruthers.[248]
+
+     The vegetable kingdom is divided into sections, according to the
+     simplicity or complexity of structure. Associated with plants of
+     simple structure we find, as a rule, more elementary organs of
+     reproduction. Linnaeus made two great divisions, of flowering
+     (_Phanerogams_) and flowerless plants (_Cryptogams_).... The higher
+     group have flowers, with their stamens and pistils, which produce
+     seeds, while the lower group are without flowers and bear spores,
+     which are much simpler bodies than seeds. There are seven main
+     groups of spore-bearers--the _alg�_ or water-weeds; the _fungi_ or
+     mushroom family; the _lichens_, which cover old walls and rocks
+     with patches of coloured vegetation; the _mosses_ with their green
+     leaves and urn-shaped fruit; the _ferns_ with their large and
+     usually much-divided leaves, on the back or edges of which the
+     spores are borne; the _horsetails_, found in wet places, having
+     jointed hollow stems and spores produced in little cones; and the
+     _club-mosses_, upright or creeping leafy plants found on our
+     mountains. These seven groups may be arranged in two divisions,
+     according to the tissues of which they are formed. In the first
+     four the whole plant is composed of _cells_, while in the last
+     three a firm _vascular skeleton_ is present. These characters are
+     of great importance to the student of fossil plants.... The
+     flowering plants are more complex in their structure, and in their
+     organs of reproduction. The lowest group of these plants is the
+     _Gymnosperms_, or naked-seeded plants, like our yews and pines. The
+     other flowering plants (_Angiosperms_) have their seeds in a closed
+     fruit. These are divided into two sections from characters derived
+     from the embryo plant in the seed, depending on whether this minute
+     plant has one seed-leaf (_cotyledon_) or two, and so we have
+     _Monocotyledons_ and _Dicotyledons_. The higher group, or
+     dicotyledons, have been arranged into three divisions, according to
+     the complexity of the flower. In one large group (_Apetalae_) the
+     pistil and stamens are not surrounded by petals, e.g. in the oak
+     and the stinging nettle: superior to them are the plants
+     (_Monopetalae_) in which the petals form a cup, as the
+     blue-bell[249] and the gentian, while the highest group
+     (_Polypetalae_) have all the petals separate, as the buttercups and
+     roses.[250]
+
+It is most important to recollect that on evolutionary principles the
+first representatives of any such classes--and the same holds of animals
+as well--must have been generalized forms, representing the type in the
+rough, or, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase, exhibiting by comparison
+with their successors indefinite incoherent homogeneity, as contrasted
+with definite coherent heterogeneity. They should bear the same sort of
+relation to the finished articles worked up by Evolution as did the
+first bone-shaker bicycle to our latest patterns, or the news-sheets of
+Cromwell's time to the _Times_ or _Graphic_ of to-day. On this, as we
+saw in the last chapter, Mr. Darwin strongly insists, confessing at the
+same time that the Geological record alone can establish such progress
+as a fact.
+
+How these various classes of plants appear actually to have come upon
+the scene, Mr. Carruthers relates both in the paper from which we have
+just quoted, and at greater length in the address which he delivered as
+President of the Geologists' Association,[251] to the following effect.
+
+In the first place, he declares that although the geological record, at
+least as known to us, is very imperfect, and represents only an
+insignificant fragment of plant-history,
+
+     There is a large series of plant-remains completely and accurately
+     known which supply a fair representation of the great events of
+     plant-life that have taken place on the earth since Pal�ozoic
+     times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy
+     this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.
+
+There is--he goes on to say--indirect evidence of the existence of
+vegetable life, long before we find any actual remains. Such indirect
+evidence is afforded in the first place by the abundance during this
+period of animal life, needing plants for its sustenance, and secondly
+by the enormous quantity of carbon in the rocks, which must have been
+secreted from the atmosphere by vegetable tissues. There are also
+certain surface marks or impressions occasionally to be found, which are
+probably due to plants of a soft and perishable character like the
+cellular cryptogams, and which although extremely vague and undefined,
+at least do not contradict the evolutionist, who regards them as
+evidence that the _Alg�_ were, as according to him they ought to have
+been, the primeval plants. Mr. Carruthers adds a caution however, which
+can find its application in other instances as well:
+
+     While making this admission in relation to the vegetation of these
+     older rocks, I must protest against the practice of completing the
+     record of life forms, by filling in particular groups without any
+     authority except the writer's impression of an adopted hypothesis,
+     and then basing arguments on these assumptions in support of the
+     hypothesis which created them. So completely has
+
+VEGETABLE DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               | Post Tertiary.|                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary.  {| Pliocene.     |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Miocene.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Eocene.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Secondary. {| Chalk.        | Dicotyledons (Apetal�, Polypetal�, |
+              {|               |�  Sympetal�).                      |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Oolite.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Trias.        |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |               |                                    |
+              {| Permian.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Carboniferous.| Monocotyledons.                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {|               |                                    |
+              {| Devonian, or  | Clubmosses, Horsetails, Ferns,     |
+              {| Old Red       |   Gymnosperms.                     |
+              {| Sandstone.    |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Primary.   {| Silurian.     | } Cellular Cryptogams.             |
+              {| Cambrian.     | }                                  |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Huronian.     | } Indications of Plants,           |
+              {| Laurentian.   | }   not determinable.              |
+               +===================+================================+
+               | AZOIC.        |                                    |
+
+     phylogenetic [or racial] evolution become the creed of some leading
+     naturalists that they unwittingly proceed in this manifestly
+     unphilosophical method. But it is a first axiom, though one often
+     forgotten, in this as in every scientific enquiry, that no step can
+     be made in advance which is not based on fact.
+
+After this initial stage, the story becomes much clearer, and at the
+same time less easy to reconcile with evolutionary requirements.
+
+Instead of making their appearance singly and successively, and passing
+imperceptibly one into another, all three groups of Vascular Cryptogams,
+and the Gymnosperms into the bargain, come on the stage together, in the
+Devonian strata; and Monocotyledons in the lower Carboniferous
+immediately following. There is no trace whatever of the development of
+any of these forms from the earlier cellular cryptogams:
+
+     But [says Mr. Carruthers] the evolution of the Vascular Cryptogams,
+     and the Phanerogams, from the green seaweeds, through the
+     liverworts and mosses, if it took place, must have been carried on
+     through a long succession of ages, and by an innumerable series of
+     advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the
+     early water forms or of the later and still more numerous dry-land
+     forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the
+     fucoids in the Llandovery rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular
+     organisms elsewhere, were, at least, fitted to preserve _some_
+     record of the necessarily rich floras, if they existed, which
+     through immense ages, led by minute steps to the Conifer
+     [_Gymnosperm_] and Monocotyledon of these Pal�ozoic Rocks.
+
+     Further, these earliest plants are not generalized forms of the
+     various tribes to which they belong, but they are as highly
+     specialized as any subsequent representatives of the particular
+     group to which they belong, and wherever they differ from later
+     plants, it is in the possession of a more perfect organization.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From all which facts Mr. Carruthers thus argues:
+
+     The complete absence of intermediate forms, and the sudden and
+     contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated
+     groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
+     countenance from the plant-record of these ancient rocks. The whole
+     evidence is against evolution, and there is none for it.[252]
+
+Dicotyledons furnish evidence of especial value. On account of their
+higher organization, they are easily distinguished from both
+Monocotyledons and Gymnosperms; and they present features which clearly
+differentiate them amongst themselves. They did not make their entry
+till after a long interval--and their remains are therefore to be found
+in strata comparatively recent and better known to us than those of the
+older rocks. It is in the Chalk, the newest of the Secondary or Mesozoic
+formations, that they first exhibit themselves, and they do it in the
+same fashion as their predecessors.
+
+When the Dicotyledons appear in the upper cretaceous beds,
+representatives of the three great groups [_Apetal�_, _Monopetal�_,
+_Polypetal�_] appear together in the same deposit. Moreover, these
+divisions are represented, not by generalized types, but by
+differentiated forms, which, during the intervening epochs, have not
+developed even into higher generic groups.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+And, here again, there is no vestige of intermediate species, linking
+dicotyledonous plants with other types.
+
+     No trace of a plant belonging to this great division has yet been
+     detected in any earlier stratum [than the upper chalk]. There is no
+     evidence whatever for Haeckel's statement that the _Apetal�_
+     probably existed in the Triassic and Jurassic periods.... It cannot
+     be doubted that the conditions favourable to the preservation of
+     Monocotyledons and Equisetums would have secured the preservation
+     of some of the _Apetal�_, had they existed. This absence can be
+     accounted for only on the supposition that they formed no part of
+     the then existing vegetation. And in the deposits older than the
+     Trias, or in any subsequent deposits, no intermediate form has been
+     detected,--no Gymnosperm or Monocotyledon which exhibits in any
+     point of its structure a modification towards the more highly
+     organized Dicotyledon.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Nor, on the same authority, is this all.
+
+     It is equally important in its bearing on the hypothesis of genetic
+     evolution that the generic groups above named have persisted from
+     the first known appearance of Dicotyledons, throughout the whole of
+     the intervening ages, and still hold their places unchanged among
+     the existing forms of vegetation. The persistence of generic and
+     specific types, and the certain knowledge we possess of the life of
+     many existing species of Phanerogams and Cryptogams which have come
+     down through the Glacial Epoch, have not been sufficiently
+     considered in their bearing on the hypothesis.
+
+We have already seen something of an example which illustrates this
+point in a remarkable manner,--that of _Salix polaris_, the willow which
+has so obstinately preserved its specific identity amid great stress of
+circumstances. It belongs to a very variable genus--one in which if
+anywhere evidence of genetic development might be looked for. Yet it is
+found that since a period prior to the great Ice Age, or Glacial epoch,
+it has remained absolutely unchanged. At such a rate, we cannot but ask,
+how long would Evolution take to get back to the generalized type-form,
+or common ancestor, of the genus _Salix_, and then to that of the Order
+_Salicineae_, which includes poplars as well as willows. "The Ordinal
+form, if it ever existed, must necessarily be much older than the period
+of the upper Cretaceous rocks, that is than the period to which the
+earliest known Dicotyledons belong."
+
+And it is obvious that when we had got back to the parental stock of the
+willow tribe, we should still, as evolutionists, be separated by a gulf
+still vastly greater from the common ancestor of all Dicotyledons, of
+oaks, apple-trees, primroses, and daisies no less than of willows and
+poplars.
+
+The significance of all these various facts is thus summed up:
+
+     The whole evidence supplied by fossil plants is, then, opposed to
+     the hypothesis of genetic evolution, and especially the sudden and
+     simultaneous appearance of the most highly organized plants at
+     particular stages in the past history of the globe, and the entire
+     absence amongst fossil plants of any forms intermediate between
+     existing classes or families. The facts of pal�ontological botany
+     are opposed to Evolution, but they testify to Development, to
+     progression from lower to higher types. The cellular Alg� preceded
+     the Vascular Cryptogams and the Gymnosperms of the Newer Pal�ozoic
+     rocks, and these were speedily followed by Monocotyledons, and, at
+     a much later period, by Dicotyledons. But the earliest
+     representatives of these various sections of the vegetable kingdom
+     were not generalized forms, but as highly organized as recent
+     forms, and in many cases more highly organized: and the divisions
+     were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as
+     decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.
+
+So much for the vegetable world. As for the animal, although the number
+and complexity of its divisions makes it less easy to present so
+complete a sketch in these moderate limits, the features of its history
+are very similar. As Sir J. W. Dawson recounts it:[253]
+
+ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |  Post Tertiary.   |  Man and Modern Mammals.       |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+             { |    Pliocene.      |                                |
+             { +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary. { |    Miocene.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Eocene.        | Placental Mammals (Ungulates,  |
+             { |                   | Unguiculates, Rodents,         |
+             { |                   | Whales, Bats).                 |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Chalk.         |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Secondary.{ |    Oolite.        | Birds.                         |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Trias.         | Marsupial Mammals.             |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Permian.       | Reptiles (various orders).     |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Carboniferous.   |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Devonian, or     | Millipeds, Insects, Spiders,   |
+             { | Old Red Sandstone.| Scorpions, Fish, Batrachians,  |
+             { |                   | etc.                           |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Primary.  { |   Silurian.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Cambrian.       | Shell Fish, Sponges, Molluscs, |
+             { |                   | Crustaceans, Worms, etc.       |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Huronian.       |  }                             |
+             { +-------------------+--}-----------------------------|
+             { |   Laurentian.     |  } Protozoa.                   |
+               +===================+================================+
+               |    AZOIC.         |                                |
+
+In the Cambrian age, we obtain a vast and varied accession of living
+things, which appear at once, as if by a sudden and simultaneous
+production of many kinds of animals. Here we find evidence that the sea
+swarmed with creatures near akin to those which still inhabit it, and
+nearly as varied.... Had we been able to drop our dredge into the
+Cambrian or Silurian ocean, we should have brought up representatives of
+all the leading types of invertebrate life that exist in the modern
+seas--different, it is true, in details of structure from those now
+existing, but constructed on the same principles, and filling the same
+places in nature.
+
+In the latter half of the Pal�ozoic we find a number of higher forms
+breaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of the
+early Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great
+variety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, singularly
+enough, belonging in many cases to groups now very rare; while the
+commoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, Batrachian
+Reptiles now abound, some of them very high in the sub-class to which
+they belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and millipedes appear as well
+as land-snails: and this not in one locality only, but over the whole
+northern hemisphere.... Nor do they show any signs of an unformed or
+imperfect state.... The compound eyes and filmy wings of insects, the
+teeth, bones, and scales of batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly
+finished, and many quite as complex and elegant, as the animals of the
+present day.
+
+This wonderful Pal�ozoic age was, however, but a temporary state of the
+earth. It passed away, and was replaced by the Mesozoic, emphatically
+the age of Reptiles, when animals of that type attained to colossal
+magnitude, to variety of function and structure, to diversity of habitat
+in sea and on land, altogether unexampled in their degraded descendants
+of modern times.... Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords
+appeared a few small and lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming
+age.[254] Birds also made their appearance.
+
+The Kainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of Mammals and of Man. In it the
+great reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are replaced on
+land and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with those now
+living, though differing as to genera and species. So greatly indeed did
+mammalian life abound in this period that in the middle part of the
+Tertiary most of the leading groups were represented by more numerous
+species than at present, while many types then existing
+
+     have now no representatives. At the close of this great and
+     wonderful procession of living beings comes Man himself--the last
+     and crowning triumph of creation the head, thus far, of life on the
+     earth.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.
+
+In the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested
+in higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of
+new forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the
+medium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
+
+The _Supposed line of continuous Evolution,_ indicates the gradual
+course which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian
+principles, by accumulation of minute differences in successive
+generations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance
+of highly differentiated types, as spoken of by pal�ontologists.
+
+[_To face page 227._]]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one other remark:[255]
+
+     There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time
+     one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another....
+     On the other hand, we constantly find species replaced by others
+     entirely new, and this without any transition. The two classes of
+     facts are essentially different, though often confounded by
+     evolutionists; and though it is possible to point out in the newer
+     geological formations some genera and species allied to others
+     which have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms
+     proceeded from the earlier, still, as the connecting links cannot
+     be found, this is mere supposition, not scientific certainty.
+     Further, it proceeds on the principle of arbitrary choice of
+     certain forms out of many, without any evidence of genetic
+     connexion.
+
+Having given a tabular view of Geological periods and Life-epochs,
+similar to those presented above, our author remarks:[256]
+
+     If in the table above we were to represent diagrammatically the
+     development of animals and plants, this would appear not as a
+     smooth and continuous stream, but as a series of great waves, each
+     rising abruptly, and then descending and flowing on at a lower
+     level along with the remains of those preceding it.
+
+And here may be noticed an observation made amongst others by the Comte
+de Saporta[257] on the remarkable parallelism of Animal and Vegetable
+development. After a period in which these kingdoms were respectively
+represented by aquatic _Alg�_ and _Protozoa_, land animals and land
+plants appear to have come in much at the same epoch; and afterwards
+dicotyledonous plants immediately preceded the advent of mammals.
+
+Mr. Mivart is of like mind with the others we have heard. "The mass of
+pal�ontological evidence," he writes,[258] "is indeed overwhelmingly
+against minute and gradual modification." He points out, with the _North
+British_ Reviewer so frequently quoted, that had the later forms of life
+descended from the earlier, through such a series of imperceptible
+gradations as is imagined, the probability would be that no two fossil
+specimens would be exactly alike, whereas in fact numbers are found of
+certain particular patterns, and none whatever between them, fossil
+animals and plants falling naturally into species, genera, families, and
+other categories just like those of the present day.
+
+It is this total absence of graduated series, linking different forms
+together, that is the great and fundamental difficulty in the way of
+genetic evolution. Yet this seems very seldom to be realized, and it
+seems constantly to be assumed that in order to establish the genetic
+continuity of two creatures no more is required than to discover
+another standing more or less between them. Thus in the most famous of
+all instances, how often do we hear of "the missing link" between man
+and ape,--as though should a generalized form be disclosed, which might
+be considered a common ancestor, the question of man's simian origin
+would be finally settled. In the same way, as we have seen, the
+existence of birds with reptilian features, is taken by some as
+conclusive proof that birds and reptiles have descended from one stock.
+But what is most imperatively wanted, is persistently wanting,--namely
+some evidence of a series in which one form passes to another, as in a
+dissolving view. And yet, genetic evolutionists must suppose such series
+to have been the universal rule throughout the whole course of life on
+earth.
+
+     Assuredly [writes M. de Quatrefages][259] is it not singularly
+     unfortunate for the evolutionary theory that so many facts which
+     tell against it should have been preserved in the scraps of
+     Nature's great book which remain to us, and that invariably those
+     which would have told in its favour were recorded in lost volumes
+     and missing leaves?
+
+In some particular instances the absence of any trace of intermediate
+forms is especially significant. The tribe of Bats, for instance, is a
+very singular one. The wings, in which form the fore-limbs are
+specialized, represent the same elements as our own hands; and other
+modifications of the same members have produced the paws of cats and
+dogs, the hoofs of horses and cattle, and the flippers of whales and
+porpoises,--to mention no others. What countless hosts of the Bat's
+ancestors must have lived and died while by accumulation of minute
+differences the primitive generalized limb whence all these diverse
+forms originated, was being turned into a wing capable of flight. Yet of
+all these no vestige is to be discovered. "Whenever the remains of bats
+have been found," says Mr. Mivart,[260] "they have presented the exact
+type of existing forms." The same, he tells us, holds good of other
+flying creatures--birds and pterodactyles--(or flying lizards--now
+wholly extinct). No trace of any of these is forthcoming while their
+wings were in the making. "Yet had such a slow mode of origin as
+Darwinians [and genetic evolutionists generally] contend for, operated
+exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that bats, birds,
+and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a
+single relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different
+forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional
+condition!"
+
+There are other creatures which stand in solitary isolation, with no
+fragments of a bridge to connect them with the general body. Such is the
+rattlesnake's family, whose pedigree, Mr. Mivart declares,[261] we
+cannot even imagine--"The ancestors of the rattlesnake are beyond our
+mental vision."
+
+     But the number of forms [says the same author][262] represented by
+     many individuals, yet by _no transitional ones_, is so great that
+     only two or three can be selected as examples. Thus those
+     remarkable fossil reptiles, the Icthyosauria and Plesiosauria,
+     extended, through the secondary period, probably over the greater
+     part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met
+     with in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again,
+     with their modern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant
+     forms alone have been found, but no series of transitional ones
+     indicating minutely the line of descent. This group, the whales, is
+     a very marked one, and it is curious, on Darwinian principles, that
+     so few instances tending to indicate its mode of origin should have
+     presented themselves. Here, as in the bats, we might surely expect
+     that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages of its
+     development would have been left.
+
+Professor W. C. Williamson likewise remarks[263] on these _lacun�_ which
+persistently occur at crucial points:
+
+     If [he writes] these generic types [of plants] first came before us
+     in such clearly defined forms, when and where did the transitional
+     states make their appearance? The extreme evolutionists constantly
+     affirm of those who believe in special creation that they
+     "habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote
+     from human observation," and that "the conception survives only in
+     connexion with imagined places where the order of organic phenomena
+     is unknown." It is legitimate to retort upon them that they as
+     habitually resort to "strata now covered by the sea"--to rocks
+     "from which all traces of such fossils as they probably included
+     have been obliterated by igneous action," and to mysterious
+     "migrations from pre-existing continents to continents that were
+     step by step emerging from the ocean." Unfortunately, so far as the
+     vegetable kingdom is concerned, we have as yet failed to discover
+     any traces of these mysterious strata or hypothetical continents in
+     which the transitions from one plant-type to another were being
+     brought about. The believers in special creations are not the only
+     reasoners who have made free use of hypothetical possibilities.
+
+He presently adds:
+
+     We have no evidence that unaided Nature has produced a single new
+     type during the historic period. We can only conclude that the
+     wonderful outburst of genetic activity which characterized the
+     Tertiary age was due to some unknown factor, which then operated
+     with an energy to which the earth was a stranger, both previously
+     and subsequently. The knowledge of this factor is what we need in
+     order to perfect our philosophy; and until we obtain that
+     knowledge, many things must remain unaccounted for, so far as
+     primeval vegetation is concerned.
+
+And elsewhere Professor Williamson reiterates the same idea:[264]
+
+     I contend stoutly [he says] that, however numerous may be the facts
+     that sustain the doctrine of evolution (and I am prepared to admit
+     that there are many that do so in a remarkable manner), this
+     unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition of some
+     factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the
+     evolutionist school.
+
+In the record of fossil fishes he finds some features which are
+particularly hard to harmonize with any theory of genetic
+evolution.[265] Amongst the very earliest representatives of this class,
+even in the upper Silurian, are found remains of sharks, in his opinion
+the highest order of fish, and in the Devonian and Carboniferous above,
+of _Ganoids_ armour clad, like the sturgeon. But nowhere below the Chalk
+do we find a single scale of _Cycloids_ or _Ctenoids_, which in regard
+alike of the scales themselves, of the nervous system and of the
+reproductive organs, are much below the sharks, and not above the
+_Ganoids_. To complicate matters still more, however, the skeleton of
+_Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_ is more highly organized than that of the
+others, and it is thus equally impossible to describe them as
+progressive or as retrogressive types.[266]
+
+Over and above this absence of intermediate or link forms, the witnesses
+who have been cited insist on the fact that those earliest found are
+not simple or generalized representatives of their respective types, as
+the theory of genetic evolution requires them to be, but are as
+perfectly finished and specialized as those appearing in later ages. To
+their testimony on this point may be added that of Professor Huxley, who
+while frankly confessing that he would be glad enough to find evidence
+in favour of such progressive modification, was constrained by his love
+of scientific truth to bear witness as follows:[267]
+
+     The only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure--positive
+     evidence--fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification
+     towards a less embryonic, or less generalized type, in a great many
+     groups of animals of long-continued geological existence. In these
+     groups there is abundant evidence of variation--none of what is
+     generally understood as progression; and if the known geological
+     record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the
+     whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily
+     progressive development can stand, for the numerous orders and
+     families cited afford no trace of such a process.
+
+So again he declared at a later period[268] summarizing what he had said
+previously:
+
+     In answer to the question, What does an impartial survey of the
+     positively ascertained truths of pal�ontology testify in relation
+     to the common doctrines of progressive modification?... I reply: It
+     negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of
+     such modification, or demonstrates such modification as has
+     occurred to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that
+     modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earliest
+     members of a long-existing group were more generalized in structure
+     than the later ones.
+
+He went on, however, to say, on this latter occasion, that discoveries
+made in the interval afforded much ground for softening "the Brutus-like
+severity" which eight years before he had exhibited in this regard, by
+disclosing such evidence as he had declared to be lacking. From the
+samples, however, which he produced, it does not appear that this fresh
+testimony comes to very much; and in view of the observations with which
+he accompanied the exposition, it would seem that in only one instance
+did it appear to himself thoroughly satisfactory.
+
+     Every fossil [he said][269] which takes an intermediate place
+     between forms of life already known, may be said, so far as it is
+     intermediate, to be evidence in favour of Evolution, inasmuch as it
+     shows a possible road by which Evolution may have taken place. But
+     the mere discovery of such a form does not, in itself, prove that
+     Evolution took place by and through it, nor does it constitute
+     more than presumptive evidence in favour of Evolution in general.
+
+     It is easy[270] to accumulate probabilities--hard to make out some
+     particular case in such a way that it will stand rigorous
+     criticism. After much search, however, I think that such a case is
+     to be made out in favour of the pedigree of the Horse.
+
+Of this famous instance we have already heard, and since it will be
+examined at length in the following chapter, we will not dwell further
+upon it here.
+
+So obvious indeed is this deficiency for evolutionary requirements of
+the Geological record, that Professor Haeckel attempts to supply the
+want by boldly interpolating a number of periods during which the
+metamorphoses occurred, but of which no record was left. He assumes that
+between the epochs of depression, when fossils were deposited beneath
+the water, there were other epochs of elevation when the land was dry
+and no deposits could occur, and he supposes that the abrupt changes of
+flora and fauna exhibited by successive formations, are due to the lapse
+of time of which we have no organic record in what he styles these
+"Ante-periods."
+
+As to this summary mode of loosing the Gordian knot, it will be
+sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's verdict: "I confess this is
+wholly incredible to me."[271] And although in his favourable review of
+Haeckel's book[272] he showed himself far more tolerant of gratuitous
+speculations, than his utterances on other occasions might have led us
+to expect, upon this point he declared: "I fundamentally and entirely
+disagree with Professor Haeckel."
+
+We may sum up the testimonies of which the above are representative in
+the words of two authorities by no means hostile to Evolution. M. Edmond
+Perrier,[273] having shewn how this theory is suggested by the
+successive developments of type, and how the phenomena of organic life
+seem to harmonize with it, thus continues:
+
+     Unfortunately, when we descend to details, such pal�ontological
+     gaps present themselves that every sort of objection is possible.
+     The chain which morphology has allowed us to piece together is
+     continually snapped when we essay to travel back into the past....
+     The art of distinguishing realities from phantoms of the
+     imagination is what has made modern science so great and so mighty.
+     She is strong enough to win honour by avowing ignorance, and
+     because men see her always determined to speak the truth, they
+     gradually realize that she is not dangerous.
+
+And in his Presidential address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1902,
+Professor S. H. Vines thus expressed himself as to the genealogical
+table of organic life, which ever since the doctrine of Evolution was
+accepted, it has been sought to construct:
+
+     Though here and there fragments of the mosaic seem to have been
+     successfully pieced together, the main outlines, even, of the great
+     picture are as yet but dimly discernible.
+
+     The fact that organic Evolution should have proceeded so far as it
+     has within such limits of time as may reasonably be allowed,
+     admits, to my mind, of no other interpretation than that variation
+     is not indeterminate, but, as Lamarck and N�geli have urged, there
+     must exist in living matter a certain inherent tendency or bias in
+     favour of variation in the higher direction. It is this tendency or
+     bias that I venture to regard as the primordial factor.
+
+But it is precisely such an inherent tendency of organic life to develop
+on predetermined lines, which Darwinians and other advocates of
+Evolution by the agency of physical forces alone, vehemently repudiate
+as fatal to their whole system.
+
+     [Since Professor Williamson wrote, the opinion has been adopted
+     that for the very reason which induced him to place the Sharks
+     above the _Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_, their relative positions
+     should be reversed. The Sharks being a more "generalized" type,
+     with features more akin to those of land-dwelling reptiles, and the
+     others more "specialized" for purely aquatic conditions, the
+     latter, it is argued, are a higher evolutionary product. As a
+     necessary corollary it is assumed that vertebrate life originated,
+     not, as had been supposed, in the sea, but in swamps or lagoons on
+     the shore-line. It must, however, remain a question how far the
+     facility with which theories can thus be modified according to
+     requirements, is calculated to inspire confidence in them.]
+
+
+
+
+XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+
+We have heard Mr. Carruthers' declaration, based upon his survey of
+pal�ontological botany, "The whole evidence is against Evolution, and
+there is none in favour of it."
+
+Remarkably enough, at almost the same period[274] Professor Huxley
+concluded a discussion of pal�ontological evidence with a precisely
+contrary pronouncement--"The whole evidence is in favour of Evolution,
+and there is none against it." On other occasions, also, he distinctly
+maintained that it is just this line of enquiry which conclusively
+establishes Evolution as no longer a theory, but an historical fact. To
+such a conclusion, he tells us,[275] "an acute and critical-minded
+investigator is led by the facts of pal�ontology;"--and, again, "If the
+doctrine of Evolution had not existed, pal�ontologists must have
+invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of
+the remains of the Tertiary mammalia."
+
+Such declarations clearly challenge consideration, especially when it
+is remembered how strict were the views which Professor Huxley professed
+as to the necessity of proofs for our beliefs,--"that it is wrong for a
+man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
+unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
+certainty."[276]
+
+We therefore turn naturally to his lectures on Evolution, wherein he
+treats the pal�ontological argument _ex professo_, and we find that his
+verdict is based upon a few selected instances, such as that of the
+reptilian birds already mentioned, which he considers favourable to
+Evolution, and one which he terms _demonstrative_,--namely that of the
+Horse. This he treats in some detail; in regard of it he delivers the
+positive judgment which we have just heard, and it therefore in a
+special manner demands our attention.
+
+As furnishing evidence for the history of the horse, two features are of
+special importance, his limbs, and his teeth. Of these we may confine
+our attention to the former, as being, at once, sufficient for our
+purpose, and within the scope of ordinary observation.
+
+The horse family, or _Equidae_, belong to the tribe of Ungulates, or
+hoofed animals, some points of whose anatomy require to be considered in
+relation to our own.
+
+Taking first the fore-limbs. What we call the "knee" of a horse is in
+reality the wrist,--the true knee, or rather elbow, being what we call
+the "shoulder." Below the knee comes the "cannon bone," corresponding to
+the middle bone of the hand, and below it the "pastern," "coronary," and
+"coffin" bones, representing the joints of the solitary middle-finger,
+while the hoof is its greatly enlarged and thickened nail. Similarly, in
+the hind-limbs; the "hock" is veritably the ankle, and again the lateral
+digits are suppressed, the middle toe alone remaining.
+
+It thus appears that an Ungulate such as the horse, is an extreme
+modification of the general Mammalian plan, his members being highly
+specialized for a certain kind of work. His leg and hoof, as the theory
+of genetic Evolution declares, have been gradually fashioned to their
+present shape from an original limb in the common Mammalian ancestor,
+which by other modifications has equally produced the totally different
+members possessed by other mammals.
+
+That the horse is descended from a race bearing more than one digit on
+each extremity, seems to be indicated by the splint-bones which are
+found on the cannon-bone of both fore and hind legs, and which represent
+the second and fourth finger and toe, and also by recorded occurrences
+of polydactyle horses, one of which has a distinguished place in history
+as Julius C�sar's charger.[277]
+
+That the animal as we now know him is the lineal descendant of various
+other ungulates, in whom the digits were gradually reduced from the
+normal number of five, to their present solitary representative,
+Professor Huxley and other Evolutionists hold to be demonstrated by the
+discovery in due succession of various equine specimens, in which this
+diminution is gradually exhibited.
+
+The remains of these animals are all found in _Tertiary_ strata, of
+which, it will be remembered, there are three great divisions, the
+_Eocene_, _Miocene_, and _Pliocene_, the first named being the most
+ancient, and the last the most recent.
+
+The genus _Equus_, or at least our modern horse, _Equus caballus_, can
+be traced no further back than the _Post-tertiary_ period. The
+succession of forms leading up thither commences at the bottom of the
+_Eocene_, and extends to the upper _Pliocene_.
+
+Following Professor Huxley's guidance, we trace the pedigree downwards,
+thus:
+
+     Firstly, there is the true horse. Next we have the American
+     Pliocene form, _Pliohippus_. In the conformation of its limbs it
+     presents some very slight deviations from the ordinary horse. Then
+     comes _Protohippus_, which represents the European _Hipparion_,
+     having one large digit and two small ones on each foot.... But it
+     is more valuable than _Hipparion_, for certain peculiarities tend
+     to show that the latter is rather a member of a collateral branch,
+     than a form in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward
+     order in time, is the _Miohippus_, [_Miocene_], which corresponds
+     pretty nearly with the _Anchitherium_ of Europe. It presents three
+     complete toes--one large median and two smaller lateral ones; and
+     there is a rudiment of that digit which answers to the little
+     finger of the human hand. The European record stops here: in the
+     American Tertiaries, the series of ancestral equine forms is
+     continued into the Eocene. An older Miocene form, _Mesohippus_, has
+     three toes in front, with a large splint-like rudiment representing
+     the little finger, and three toes behind. The _radius_ and _ulna_,
+     _tibia_ and _fibula_,[278] are distinct. Most important of all is
+     the _Orohippus_, from the Eocene. Here we find four complete toes
+     on the front limb, three toes on the hind-limb, a well developed
+     _ulna_, a well developed _fibula_.
+
+Here, when the lecture which we are considering was delivered, the
+series terminated:--and upon the facts as above given Professor Huxley
+thus commented:
+
+     Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge
+     extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely
+     that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
+     principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies
+     us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene
+     deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have
+     yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four
+     complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
+     front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind
+     foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be
+     more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in
+     which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole
+     series must have taken its origin.
+
+Finally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the
+lecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals,
+_Eohippus_, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might
+first be looked for. "This," adds Professor Huxley, "is what I mean by
+demonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is
+in favour of Evolution, and there is none against it."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+That these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all
+attention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are
+conclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many
+considerations require to be carefully weighed.
+
+(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other
+instances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really
+wanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species
+gradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have
+heard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated,
+for each belongs to a different _genus_,[279] which shows that the
+differences between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther
+apart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for
+both of these are classed in the genus _equus_,--or than the Bengal
+tiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus
+_felis_.
+
+These various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and
+if they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway,
+we ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those
+particular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very
+distinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge,
+yet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found,
+or, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were,
+can it be said that the story of the fossil _equidae_ furnishes
+convincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities
+these various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that
+affinities necessarily imply descent.
+
+There is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that
+Professor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of _Eohippus_,
+and specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present.
+In the same way, Professor Marsh[280] anticipates and describes a still
+more remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been
+found, he has provided an appellation, _Hippops_. But if either
+Professor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted
+that we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary
+outpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life
+whereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence
+that the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something
+analogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their
+discovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that
+their actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that
+it is very definitely fixed.
+
+(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of
+which Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him,
+_Equus caballus_, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced
+to America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been
+horses in America previously,--belonging to the genus _Equus_, perhaps
+even to the species _caballus_,--they had, however, been long extinct,
+and no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree
+given by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals,
+to which category belong all whose names terminate in _-hippus_, and
+these cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European
+horse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:[281]
+
+     In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,
+     beginning with the _Eohippus_ of the Eocene--an animal the size of
+     a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind--and these have
+     been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of
+     America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely
+     on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the
+     modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits
+     often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other
+     hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to
+     _Pal�otherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely
+     indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse
+     belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too
+     many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,
+     and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American
+     horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,
+     descendants of _Pal�otherium_, not of _Eohippus_; but if we had not
+     known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to
+     prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple
+     consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are
+     not of the nature of scientific evidence.
+
+(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much
+diversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines
+of ancestry favoured--(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited
+in our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr.
+Mivart,[282] (4) By Mr. Lydekker,[283] (5) In The _Evolution of the
+Horse_, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This
+last gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of
+the American Horse alone.
+
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   _Huxley._  |_British_      | _Mivart._   |_Lydekker._        |_American
+              |_Museum Case._ |             |                   | Museum._
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  Equus       |Equus          |Equus        |Equus              |Equus
+  Pliohippus  |               |             |                   |
+  Protohippus |Hipparion      |Hipparion    |Hipparion          |Hipparion
+              |               |Protohippus  |Protohippus        |Hypohippus
+  Miohippus   |               |Anchitherium |Anchitherium       |Merychippus
+  Anchitherium|Anchitherium   |             |{Anchilophus       |{Mesohippus
+  Mesohippus  |Protohippus    |Pachynolophus|{(_form allied to_)|{ (_2 species_)
+              |{Mesohippus    |             |                   |Epihippus
+  Orohippus   |{ (_2 species_)|             |{Hyracotherium     |Protorohippus
+  Eohippus    |Hyracotherium  |Phenacodus   |{Systemodon        |Eohippus
+              |               |             |                   |_An undiscovered
+              |               |             |                   | ancestor_
+              |               |             |                   | (Hippops)
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+It will be observed, that whereas _Hipparion_ is disallowed by Professor
+Huxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other
+genealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of _Equus_. Also that
+in all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used
+indifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that
+there is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would
+likewise appear that even the existence of _Eohippus_ himself is not
+beyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name
+always has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities
+give an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still
+remains to be discovered.
+
+There is something even more remarkable.
+
+
+DEVELOPMENT OF EQUID�.
+
+                        / +---------------------------------------------------+
+               Recent. {  | Equus Caballus.{*}                                |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  | Equus Stenonis.{*}{**} E. Sivalensis.{*}{**} &c.  |
+          Quaternary.  {  |     Hippidium.{**}  E. Americanus.{**} &c.        |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                       {  | Pliohippus.                                       |
+           /           {  |                                                   |
+          {  Pliocene. {  | Hipparion.{*}{**}  Protohippus.                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / |                                                   |
+TERTIARY. {            {  |                                                   |
+          {   Miocene. {  | Hypohippus.  Parahippus.                          |
+          {            {  | Miohippus.  Anchitherium.{*}                      |
+          {            {  | Merychippus.                                      |
+          {            {  | Mesohippus.                                       |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / | Epihippus.                                        |
+          {            {  | Orohippus.  Hyracotherium.{*}                     |
+          {    Eocene. {  | Protorohippus.   Pachynolophus.{*}                |
+          {            {  | Eohippus.                                         |
+           \           {  | Phenacodus.                                       |
+                        \ |                                                   |
+                          +---------------------------------------------------+
+                          |                                                   |
+                          | Hippops (undiscovered).                           |
+              SECONDARY.  |                                                   |
+                          |   No trace of Mammals except small                |
+                          |       Marsupials and Insectivora.                 |
+                          |                                                   |
+
+{* Indicates an inhabitant of the Old World. All others are American.}
+
+{** "Not in direct line of ancestry."}
+
+Huxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was
+delivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had
+declared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other
+genealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something
+really satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870--which he thus indicated
+as scientifically established--was totally different from that of 1876,
+and was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter.
+In 1870 the ancestry presented for _Equus_ consisted of _Hipparion_,
+_Anchitherium_, and _Plagiolophus_. Of these, _Hipparion_ was in 1876
+specifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: _Anchitherium_ was
+displaced by _Miohippus_, and although we are told that these creatures
+"correspond pretty nearly," the Horse cannot be descended from _both_,
+especially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally
+_Plagiolophus_ disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing
+could more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that
+an authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley
+should thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after
+information to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures
+happened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of _Hipparion_ to ancestral
+equine rank to be beyond dispute. "No one will deny," he wrote,[284]
+"that the _Hipparion_ is intermediate between the existing horse and
+certain older ungulate forms." Yet, as we see, this has been denied by
+his champion Huxley himself.
+
+(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various
+equine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed.
+As a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton,
+so that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really
+like, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to
+him. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of
+these as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse
+descended from it. Thus in _Hippidium_, an American genus closely allied
+to _Equus_, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate
+in claws.[285] One species of _Hippidium_ is known only by a solitary
+tooth. Of _Hyracotherium_ only the skull has been found: of _Orohippus_
+only parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of _Epihippus_, "only
+incomplete specimens."[286] Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking
+of the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses
+himself:[287]
+
+     Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated
+     the three animals [_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_, and _Equus_] are
+     filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before
+     I can arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is
+     proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It
+     appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the
+     testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I
+     must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not
+     be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate
+     transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every
+     part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the
+     stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....
+     Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual
+     shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.
+
+(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant
+particular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's
+ancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them
+that all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly
+assists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent.
+But as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the
+remoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. _Hyracotherium_,
+for instance, was "about the size of a hare,"[288] and according to
+Professor Cope, _Orohippus_ was the exact counterpart of this diminutive
+steed. The hypothetical _Hippops_, which Professor Marsh locates in the
+lower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,[289] now "be
+predicated with certainty;" and amongst other things it "probably was
+not larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller." Sometimes, so far as
+evidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was
+deterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus
+_Epihippus_, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than
+_Protorohippus_, found in the Middle Eocene; "but," says the American
+pamphlet,[290] "no doubt there were others of larger size living at the
+same time," which will scarcely be called convincing.
+
+[Illustration: "THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.
+
+"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'S _LECTURES ON EVOLUTION_.]
+
+(vi.) Worthy of notice also is "the remarkable circumstance that in the
+line of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of
+generically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries
+of both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that
+on both continents a parallel development of the same genera has
+simultaneously taken place."[291] And, as we have seen, while the
+American pedigree must have been entirely different from the European,
+it terminates equally in both continents with the genus _Equus_, if not
+actually with _Equus caballus_.[292] But, on any mechanical system of
+evolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along
+separate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.[293] Mr.
+Darwin did not conceive it possible that the same species should be
+produced twice over, "if even the very same conditions of life, organic
+and inorganic should recur,"[294] and the production of genuine horses,
+not only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different
+ancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr.
+Mivart,[295] "it follows from this generic identity, that classification
+will be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard,
+not the origin but the _outcome_ of development, whether of the
+individual or the species."
+
+(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of
+the above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound
+and substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last
+ungulate is lineally descended from the first,--_Equus_ from _Eohippus_,
+_Hyracotherium_, _Phenacodus_, or _Hippops_,--but that this first
+ungulate himself--whichever it was--has been, or at least may have been,
+similarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common
+parent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all
+these from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the
+infinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a
+period of time inconceivably long--immensely longer than that required
+to change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a
+highly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the
+nails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution
+would be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all
+Mammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while
+this development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian
+life, as raw material for its operations--and of this at least _some_
+trace should remain.
+
+But, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon
+earth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could
+possibly have sprung. _Phenacodus_, is in fact described as,[296] "The
+most primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered." He appears in the Lower
+Tertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,--the whole
+period covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of
+Tertiary mammals generally,--are practically devoid of mammalian remains
+altogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no
+more suppose _Phenacodus_ and the huge and various beasts who were his
+Eocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of
+shrew-mice.
+
+It also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental
+mammals first show themselves all over the world at the beginning of
+the Eocene,--while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems
+to have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of
+extreme diversities of structure:--as for instance Unguiculates (or
+clawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing
+animals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the
+Cetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:[297]
+
+     The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than
+     any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by
+     two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The
+     great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (_Zeuglodon_) which have
+     these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are
+     undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.
+     This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the
+     theory of Evolution.... "We may question," says Gaudry,[298] "these
+     strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their
+     progenitors--they leave us without reply." ... Their silence is the
+     more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have
+     been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages
+     of their development.
+
+The Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from
+the generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in
+quite another direction. But they appear with their wings fully
+developed, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.
+
+     Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson][299] that it is "natural to
+     suppose" that there must have been species existing previously with
+     shorter fingers[300] and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts
+     to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since
+     the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps
+     harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the
+     present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to
+     develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a
+     bat?
+
+Such instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties
+confined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when
+Anchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might
+claim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but
+Perissodactyles, or "odd-toed," like himself. These were the
+"Proboscideae"--"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a
+hand," in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other
+families, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of
+their race, for some of their Miocene specimens[301] are about half as
+large again as the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray
+Lankester has recently declared[302] that we now understand the genetic
+affinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into
+trunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement
+he adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain
+recently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called
+final which are based upon such partial evidence?[303] As M. Gaudry,
+convinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very
+matter:[304]
+
+     Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did
+     they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do
+     not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as
+     a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great
+     to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans
+     and animals of other orders as yet known to us.
+
+Such then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the
+genesis of the Horse, "the most famous instance of geological
+evidence"[305] which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to
+demonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be
+supposed to merit any such description. In view of the various
+difficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is
+satisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone
+are such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the _Equid�_.
+Even were the reality of this established to the full, how would such
+evidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of
+Organic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its
+history?[306]
+
+We find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares pal�ontology to be
+the main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact
+contrary.
+
+     The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson][307] is
+     essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much
+     more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them
+     more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants
+     revealed by the rocks of the earth.
+
+Similarly Professor Williamson,[308] speaking of the efforts made to
+obtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: "Not only living, but
+extinct animals have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has,
+with his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the
+geological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one."
+
+More important than all,--Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the
+pal�ontological evidence is far short of what it should be:--and
+attempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the
+geological record:--a plea to be more fully considered presently.
+
+We must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological
+record adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a
+slight specimen,--- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the
+apetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom
+of the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious
+Evolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a
+perfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days,
+in which "we may suppose" all the forms of after vegetation to have
+begun their career as seaweeds.[309]
+
+But in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he
+goes much further, and prints[310] an elaborate genealogy upon which
+Professor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he
+exhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an "Ancestral Series of
+the human pedigree," which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers will
+naturally suppose to be based upon pal�ontological evidence. This
+wonderful genealogy stands thus:
+
+1. _Monera._ 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval
+animals. 4. Ciliated planul� (_Plan�ada_). 5. Primeval Intestinal
+animals (_Gastr�ada_). 6. Gliding Worms (_Turbellaria_). 7. Soft-worms
+(_Scolecida_). 8. Sack worms (_Himatega_). 9. _Acrania._ 10.
+_Monorrhina._ 11. Primeval fish (_Selachii_). 12. Salamander fish
+(_Dipneusta_). 13. Gilled Amphibia (_Sozobranchia_). 14. Tailed Amphibia
+(_Sozura_). 15. Primeval Amniota (_Protamnia_). 16. Primary Mammals
+(_Promammalia_). 17. _Marsupialia._ 18. Semi-apes (_Prosimi�_). 19.
+Tailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like
+Apes). 21. _Pithecanthropus_ (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking
+Man.
+
+     The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages][311] is that not
+     one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,
+     either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon
+     theory.[312] All species, existing or extinct, are said to have
+     been preceded by ancestral forms, which have disappeared leaving
+     no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill
+     represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up
+     the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is
+     sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types
+     themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them
+     [for example No. 7, The _Scolecida_, and No. 21,
+     _Pithecanthropus_].
+
+This kind of "Science" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will
+be sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:[313]
+
+     If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree
+     telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the
+     missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters
+     which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that
+     have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does
+     continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his
+     genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another
+     would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures
+     actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he
+     unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in
+     phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the
+     discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more
+     than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely
+     hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a
+     trace of it, or ever will.
+
+It is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the
+Riddles of the Universe.
+
+As Vogt himself wrote,[314] "We shall be compelled to patch and alter
+these genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set
+forth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism."
+
+And Du Bois-Reymond,[315] "Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is
+worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical
+historians."
+
+There remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted
+deficiency of pal�ontological evidence.
+
+     The main cause [he writes][316] of innumerable intermediate links
+     [between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout
+     nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through
+     which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant
+     their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of
+     extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of
+     intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly
+     enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
+     stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
+     reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,
+     is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
+     against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
+     extreme imperfection of the geological record.
+
+How imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has
+no difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been
+defaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to
+our inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is
+continually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not
+appear that it need detain us long.
+
+It is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot
+prove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof
+of that theory which is required. Apart from pal�ontological facts, as
+Professor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one
+way or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently
+complete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be
+scientifically established.
+
+Is it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that
+precisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which
+the Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which
+appears to contradict it?
+
+But, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record
+undoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what
+exists,--there still remains a vast mass of information which it has
+actually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as
+to the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If,
+as on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were
+in each line of descent no successive species or genera, made up of
+forms clustered round one point in the course of development more than
+another, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such
+isolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no
+single instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking
+them together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points
+in Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and
+apparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?
+
+It is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite
+inconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly
+unmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is
+sufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the
+Horse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for
+his Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed _Equus_
+did not exist during the earlier periods when _Eohippus_,
+_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_ and the rest of them were preparing the way
+for his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with
+others more ancient still which are set down as _their_ ancestors. But
+on what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains
+of the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less
+developed. If such a reason be sufficient--which we will not
+question--it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of
+intermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in the supposed
+pedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms
+there never were.
+
+It is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell
+the wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the
+right one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing
+us to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring
+lines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart
+tells us,[317] "It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared
+at first to indicate a _gradual transition_, which instances have been
+shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly
+anything of the kind." Another example of the same sort is furnished by
+the recent discovery of _Arsinoetherium_, a genus of very large and
+heavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered
+in the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large
+rhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we
+are told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and
+two smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite
+apart _from all other mammals_.
+
+It thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the
+bar of Pal�ontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend
+is, Not proven.
+
+One thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic
+Evolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the
+development of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been
+found by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we
+know.
+
+As the Count de Saporta writes:[318]
+
+     Although the problem of "creation,"--formerly thought so simple,
+     and dated almost within human ken and the period of human
+     history--has now been relegated to a period too distant to be
+     imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the
+     problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been
+     shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been
+     altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more
+     and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to
+     investigate remains precisely the same.
+
+So too M. Blanchard:[319]
+
+     There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the
+     apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it
+     would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.
+     If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang
+     from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,
+     the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of
+     the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less
+     marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.
+
+And, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell,
+when he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory,
+wrote to him,[320]--"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much
+required as ever."
+
+
+
+
+XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+
+It is time to return to the point from which we started our whole
+enquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a
+solution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which
+we dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever,
+we saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no
+less than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning,
+and there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,--a cause
+capable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced.
+The material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,--organic life
+with all its infinite marvels and varieties--animal sensation--human
+intelligence--canons of beauty, the law of good and evil--all these must
+have existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence
+alone they could be derived.
+
+The Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we
+set ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science
+has found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe itself as
+they come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces
+which she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In
+particular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various
+significations, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine,
+from the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be
+said that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.
+
+The result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has
+immensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be
+accounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account
+for them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of
+Nature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than
+they were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of
+motion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational
+intelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order
+to which all Nature testifies,--all these are for Science utterly
+unsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must
+remain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be
+that any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the
+sublime and beautiful,--and above all--of the distinction between right
+and wrong.
+
+Here, then, Science stops,--confessing that she can be our guide no
+farther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions
+which are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name. Her domain
+is the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within
+that realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our
+intellectual need for causality.
+
+Are we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First
+Cause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the
+Agnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must
+not pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When
+Science fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,--thus only
+can our position still be scientific.
+
+But is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and
+monstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our
+senses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less
+certain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the
+monument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it
+contains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one
+adequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as
+the proverb says, "Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in
+it." From such conclusions there is no escape;--and since it is
+impossible to find the cause required within the world of material
+forces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must
+lie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Therefore, also, we know something concerning that Cause,--very little,
+perhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,--but still something
+very substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must
+possess every excellence which we discover in Nature,--all that she has,
+and more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of
+itself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is
+no power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in
+Nature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be
+supereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise
+of its might,--or it would be inferior to its own works.
+
+     Since there must have been something from eternity, [says
+     Bolingbroke][321] because there is something now, the eternal Being
+     must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;
+     for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce
+     entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must
+     exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or
+     whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to
+     conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a
+     cause.
+
+It is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion
+of the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they
+assume "as absolutely self-evident" the existence of a Deity who is the
+Creator and Upholder of all things.
+
+It will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which
+formidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the
+whole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did
+not Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own
+image and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be
+more conclusive than that?
+
+But what--after all--does "Anthropomorphism" mean in this connexion?
+Simply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is
+superhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are
+by the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression
+except such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can
+convince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some
+extent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no
+description of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination,
+except so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external
+world. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial
+being, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the
+object they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give
+it one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise
+they could not portray it at all. But however such images may be
+refined and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as
+conventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as
+different from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on
+the score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music
+is a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are
+heads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the
+Theistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into
+words we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and
+to borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the
+highest and noblest element found in the Universe,--namely our own
+intelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally
+possessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is
+sound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible
+excellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only
+when it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of
+an inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained
+in a pound,--but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper.
+According to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of
+energy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from
+observation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and
+light; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and
+obvious enough, often as it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver
+Lodge has lately put the matter:[322]
+
+     Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no
+     worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many
+     errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy
+     attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its
+     existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no
+     more.
+
+Or as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:[323]
+
+     That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself
+     thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or
+     express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained
+     be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than
+     the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the
+     more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason
+     disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of
+     the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as
+     existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,
+     independently of the mind of the investigator.
+
+The reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the
+force of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a
+fundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce
+the element of purpose in Nature is to deny the continuity of Natural
+law, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure,
+is equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that
+particular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may
+be supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of "the commoner
+and coarser forms of teleology," giving as an instance the supposition
+that eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors
+to see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less
+difficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any
+purpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;--but evidently it
+is taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature
+to be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or
+peacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has
+been said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it
+is through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes
+came to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there
+is of admitting the Creator into Creation. "It is still assumed on both
+sides," he wrote,[324] "that there must be something inexplicable or
+miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,"--and
+although we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of
+Theists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections
+on this head can only signify that it is with the laws of Nature as
+with a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and
+set it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as
+a legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge
+who administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete
+cases,--so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted,
+provides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He
+has instituted.
+
+So it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must
+conceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of
+all things, while Lord Kelvin declares[325] we are unmistakably shown
+through Nature that she depends upon one "ever-acting Creator and
+Ruler." It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds
+the modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs,
+indeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence
+by identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter
+qualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific
+experience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point
+as against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be "the most
+illogical form of metaphysics," and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, "not so
+much error as sheer nonsense." Theism avoids the error of either
+extreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction
+between the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His
+creatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and
+that in their every operation He is manifested.
+
+And so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world,
+and the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a
+Self-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a
+basis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need
+of causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as
+necessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only
+indirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.
+
+By no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck,
+the real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore
+represent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with
+them we may conclude.[326]
+
+     Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is
+     seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though
+     indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he
+     observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally
+     solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by
+     the consideration of His works....
+
+     Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of
+     things constituting a power subject to law, cannot therefore be
+     God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,
+     of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus
+     the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,
+     since these laws originate from Him.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX
+
+
+_A._ _Evolution and the lower forms of life_ (_p. 165_).
+
+A singularly instructive field for the study of the mutability or
+stability of species should be afforded by the lower forms of life, in
+which organization is reduced to a minimum, they being mere masses of
+protoplasm without even a containing envelope, while their nourishment
+is of the simplest. It would therefore appear that environment should be
+all-potent to modify them and produce specific modifications, while the
+extreme rapidity with which they propagate their kind, and that
+unisexually, ought to require no vast extent of time to make such
+transmutations apparent.
+
+It is found, however, on the contrary, that nowhere in organic nature
+does the type remain more rigidly persistent. Professor Macbride, for
+example, tells us,[327]
+
+"The Myxomycet� may be regarded as the organic group in which the forces
+of heredity,--whatever these forces may be--are at their maximum: they
+have responded as little as possible to the influence of their
+environment."
+
+To the same effect speaks Professor Paulesco of Bucharest, of other
+elementary organisms.[328]
+
+What is still more remarkable, these same organisms are extremely
+sensitive to altered conditions of environment, which have a direct and
+immediate influence, gravely modifying their morphological and
+physiological characters, changes in respect of light, minute
+alterations of temperature, or the introduction of a new chemical
+substance, even in infinitesimal quantity, frequently causing them to
+assume forms very different from the specific type, and profoundly
+modifying their nutritive processes.
+
+Here, it was at first thought, when Pasteur revealed their history, is
+clear evidence of specific transformation. But he presently convinced
+himself and others that it is not so, for although liable to assume such
+polymorphic forms according to the conditions in which they find
+themselves, there is no alteration of specific nature, and if the
+original circumstances be restored, the original forms reappear--"une
+�lasticit� functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier � des
+conditions vari�es d'existence sans changer d'�tre." (Pasteur.)
+
+As M. Duclaux adds:[329]
+
+"La notion d'esp�ce ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilit� est un
+caract�re comme un autre, bien que plus difficile � inscrire dans la
+classification, et une esp�ce est aussi bien d�finie par les
+sensibilit�s diverses qu'elle manifeste que par la petite liste des mots
+et de propri�t�s dans laquelle on croyait pouvoir autrefois enfermer
+toute son histoire.... La lien de l'esp�ce c'est la loi qui pr�side �
+ces changements, et la vari�t� des formes et des fonctions n'est pas du
+tout en contradiction avec l'unit� de l'esp�ce."
+
+
+_B._ _Note on Chap. XV. p. 203._
+
+Since the foregoing pages have been in type there has come to hand the
+New York _Literary Digest_ of January 23, 1904, containing the following
+article (p. 119).
+
+"ARE THE DAYS OF DARWINISM NUMBERED?"
+
+The recent death of Herbert Spencer lends special timeliness to the
+above topic, which is being actively debated just now in German
+theological circles. The immediate cause of the revival of interest in
+the present status of the Darwinian theory is found in a lengthy article
+by the veteran philosopher, Edward von Hartmann, which appears in
+Oswald's _Annalen der Naturphilosophie_ (vol. ii. 1903), under the title
+'Der Niedergang der Darwinismus' ('The Passing of Darwinism'). That the
+famous 'philosopher of the unconscious' is not prejudiced in favour of
+biblical views has been more than clear since the publication of his
+_Selbstzersetzung der Christentums_ ('Disintegration of Christianity')
+in 1874. Hartmann in his new article has this to say--
+
+'In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of
+savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies,
+the new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In
+the eighties, Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an
+almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for
+the first time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were
+heard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming
+at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the
+twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are
+numbered. Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, Gustav
+Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann, Reinke, and many
+others.'
+
+These facts, according to Hartmann's view, while they do not indicate
+that the Darwinian theory is doomed, undermine its most radical
+features:
+
+'The theory of descent is safe, but Darwinism has been weighed and found
+wanting. Selection can in general not achieve any positive results, but
+only negative effects; the origin of species by minimal changes is
+possible, but has not been demonstrated. The pretensions of Darwinism as
+a pure mechanical explanation of results that show purpose are totally
+groundless.'
+
+Other scholars think that Hartmann does not do full justice to the
+reaction that has set in, particularly in Germany, against Darwinism.
+This sentiment is voiced by Professor Zoeckler, of the University of
+Greifswald, in the _Beweis des Glaubens_ (No. xi.), a journal which
+recently published a collection of anti-Darwinian views from German
+naturalists. He calls the article of Hartmann 'the tombstone-inscription
+[_Grabschrift_] for Darwinism,' and goes on to say:
+
+     'The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically
+     must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartmann's exposition nor
+     the authorities he cites have the force of moral conviction for the
+     claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is
+     not a scientifically demonstrated proposition, although descent in
+     an ideal sense can be made to harmonize with the biblical account
+     of creation.'
+
+Views of a similar kind are voiced in many quarters. The Hamburg savant,
+Edward Hoppe, has written a brochure, _Ist mit der Descendenz-Theorie
+eine religi�se Vorstellung vereinbar?_ [Is the Theory of Evolution
+reconcilable with the Religious Idea?] in which he takes issue, in the
+name of religion, with the purely naturalistic type of Darwinian
+thought. The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwinian views is
+Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, who has not only discarded the
+mechanical conception of the origin of being, but the whole Darwinian
+theory. He recently delivered a course of lectures, entitled 'Die
+Darwin'sche Theorie,' which have appeared in book form in Leipsic. He
+comes to this conclusion: 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a
+single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result
+of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.'
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From another article in the same journal (p. 116), entitled 'A Study of
+Creation,' the following paragraphs may be cited:
+
+     "The French have never been enthusiastic Darwinians. It is,
+     perhaps, not surprising, therefore, to find a French geologist, M.
+     Stanislas Meunier, arguing in the _Revue Scientifique_ (December
+     19) against all schools of transformism and stoutly maintaining
+     what is practically a doctrine of special creation. He admits that
+     living beings form a connected series; but the connexion, he
+     believes, is not one of physical descent, but inheres in something
+     outside of and pre-existent to the earth. He does not name it, but
+     he would probably not object to the inference that it is the mind
+     of a creator.
+
+     "M. Meunier gives at some length his reasons for rejecting
+     Darwin's, Lamarck's, and all other theories of transformism. All we
+     can be sure of, he thinks, is that, as in the case of the various
+     kinds of pottery, we have to do with an orderly development,
+     although he thinks it is not a development by descent. He closes,
+     thus:
+
+     "'Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis on the mechanism
+     of the production of living things; but it is, perhaps, a step in
+     advance only to come to the conclusion that the cause of life and
+     its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth; that it
+     is anterior to our world, just as are doubtless the laws of physics
+     and chemistry, which govern the relations of matter and force
+     throughout space.
+
+     "'The philosophy of science can lose nothing by the admission of
+     points of view that, far from narrowing our subjects of study,
+     enlarge them beyond all limits; and this is, perhaps, the occasion
+     to show once more to persons who are turning toward metaphysics in
+     their thirst for mystery, that they will find in pure science that
+     wherewith they may satisfy their legitimate aspirations.'"
+
+
+_C._ _Succession of Plant forms p. 220._
+
+Recent investigations have led to the remarkable discovery that many
+fern-like plants of the Carboniferous rocks, hitherto classed as
+Cryptogams, were in reality seed-bearers, and thus intermediate between
+Cryptogams and Cycads, the most primitive of existing seed-plants. They
+have accordingly been placed in a special group "Cycadofilices," or
+"Fern-Cycads," and regarded as transitional types, the view that they
+are the remains of a natural bridge connecting the Ferns with the
+Gymnosperms having received wide support,[330] and at first sight this
+conclusion would appear natural and obvious. But here, as in other
+cases, the difficulty is that the seeds which have been found are all
+fully developed; there are none in the intermediate stages between true
+spores and true seeds; we have the finished article, but no trace of
+seeds in the making; which upon any theory of evolution must have been
+exceedingly numerous. Hence Dr. Scott tells us:[331]
+
+"The important discoveries of the seeds of the Pteridosperms scarcely
+touch the question of descent, for these organs are of too advanced a
+type to throw light on the probable derivation of the group."
+
+In this instance, therefore, as in others, it remains true that in no
+case is any trace found of rudimentary character in the earliest fossil
+specimens of any class.
+
+It is undoubtedly a further puzzle that some of the Carboniferous
+cryptogams which did not bear real seeds, yet simulated them, a habit
+not easily explained on evolutionary principles.
+
+
+_D._ _The Course of Evolution._
+
+The evidence of Professor Vines quoted in the text (pp. 202, 237)
+receives a remarkable confirmation from that of Dr. Smith Woodward,
+Keeper of Geology in the National Museum of Natural History. Speaking
+before the International Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis,
+U.S.A., September 22nd, 1904, he thus touched upon the same question,
+which he illustrated especially from the history of fossil fishes, which
+he has made his special study.[332]
+
+     "It must be confessed that repeated discoveries have now left faint
+     hope that exact and gradual links will ever be forthcoming between
+     most of the families and genera. The 'imperfection of the record,'
+     of course, may still render some of the negative evidence
+     untrustworthy; but even approximate links would be much commoner in
+     collections than they actually are if the doctrine of gradual
+     evolution were correct. Pal�ontology, indeed, is clearly in favour
+     of the theory of discontinuous mutation, or advance by sudden
+     changes, which has lately received so much support from the
+     botanical experiments of H. de Vries.
+
+     "Further results obtained from the study of fossils have a bearing
+     even on the deepest problems of Biology, namely, those connected
+     with the nature of life itself. For instance, it is allowable to
+     infer, from the statements already made, that the main factor in
+     the evolution of organisms is some inherent impulse--the 'bathmic
+     force' of Cope--which acts with unerring certainty whatever be the
+     conditions of the moment."
+
+
+_E._ _Pedigree of the Horse._
+
+Some recent evidence on this subject certainly does not clear away the
+difficulties set forth in the text.
+
+From _Nature_, Sept. 8, 1904, p. 474.
+
+     "Professor Osborn (in a lecture before the British Association)
+     mentioned that more than a hundred more or less complete skeletons
+     of horses and horse-like animals had been found in North America.
+     He thought he had established the fact that horses were
+     polyphyletic, there being four or five contemporary series in the
+     Miocene, but that the direct origin of the genus _Equus_ in North
+     America was not established with certainty."
+
+Professor Sedgwick, _Student's Text Book of Zoology_, p. 599.
+
+     "Much has been written on the ancestry of the horse. It has been
+     maintained by many authors that a continuous series of forms
+     connecting it with the four-toed, brachyodont Hyracothorid� of the
+     Eocene has been discovered, and that here if anywhere a
+     demonstrative historical proof has been obtained of the doctrine of
+     organic evolution. Without desiring in the smallest degree to
+     impugn that doctrine, it may be permitted us here to examine rather
+     closely the view that the series of forms which recent
+     pal�ontological research has undoubtedly brought to light
+     constitute that historical proof which has been claimed for them."
+
+[After an examination of the structural characters of these intermediate
+forms, viz., _Pliohippus_, _Protohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Miohippus_,
+_Mesohippus_, _Orohippus_, and _Hyracotherium_, the author proceeds]:
+
+     "So far as the characters mentioned are concerned, we have here a
+     very remarkable series of forms which at first sight seem to
+     constitute a linear series with no cross-connections. Whether,
+     however, they really do this is a difficult point to decide. There
+     are flaws in the chain of evidence, which require careful and
+     detailed consideration. For instance, the genus _Equus_ appears in
+     the Upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene
+     age. It has, however, been maintained that these beds are in
+     reality Lower Pliocene, or even Upper Pliocene. It is clear that
+     the decision of this question is of the utmost importance. If
+     _Equus_ really existed in the Upper Miocene, it was antecedent to
+     some of its supposed ancestors. Again in the series of equine
+     forms, _Mesohippus_, _Miohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Protohippus_,
+     which are generally regarded as coming into the direct line of
+     equine descent, Scott[333] points out that each genus is, in some
+     respect or other, less modified than its predecessor. In other
+     words, it would appear that in this succession of North American
+     forms the earlier genera show, in some points, closer resemblance
+     to the modern _Equus_ than to their immediate successors. It is
+     possible that these difficulties and others of the same kind will
+     be overcome with the growth of knowledge, but it is necessary to
+     take note of them, for in the search after truth nothing is gained
+     by ignoring such apparent discrepancies between theory and fact."
+
+Besides the structure of limbs and teeth, another argument for the
+descent of the horse has been drawn from certain phenomena of
+colouration. Stripings are found not unfrequently to occur in the legs
+and withers, which Darwin took for a reversion to the character of a
+very remote ancestor, the common parent, in fact, of horses and asses,
+which he supposed to have been striped all over like a zebra. Like other
+such common ancestors, this hypothetical animal had never been seen, but
+was thought to be most nearly represented by the Kathiwar horse, with
+stripes on a dun ground, a specimen of which is exhibited as
+illustrating the hypothesis in the National Museum of Zoology.
+
+Recently, however, Professor Ridgeway, who has devoted special attention
+to the problem, has satisfied himself that there is no sufficient
+foundation for these suppositions. He thus sums up the evidence which he
+has been able to collect:[334]
+
+     "Darwin's view that the original ancestor of the Equid� was a
+     dun-coloured animal, striped all over, was based, not merely on the
+     occurrence of stripes in horses, but on his belief that such
+     stripes were common in dun horses, and that there was a tendency in
+     horses to revert to dun colour. But it must be confessed that the
+     facts do not warrant his conclusion.... It is clear that stripes
+     are at least as often a concomitant of dark as of dun colour.
+     Moreover, if Darwin's hypothesis of a dun-coloured ancestor with
+     stripes is sound, dark colours such as bay and brown must be of
+     more recent origin, and accordingly there ought to be a great
+     readiness on the part of a progeny of a light-coloured animal when
+     mated with a dark to revert to the light. But Professor Ewart's
+     zebra stallion has never been able to stamp his own peculiar
+     pattern or his own colours on his hybrid offspring. The ground
+     colour has been determined by the dams of the hybrids."
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+_Abiogenesis_, 49-51
+
+_�tiology_, 197
+
+Agnosticism, Huxley's first principle of, 4
+  Its fundamental principle unreasonable, 272
+
+American Museum and the pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Amphibians, embryology, 195
+
+"Anthropomorphism," 274, 275
+
+_Arch�opteryx_, 171
+
+_Archebiosis_, 53
+
+Argus pheasant, ornamentation, 175
+
+_Arsinoetherium_, 267
+
+Atlantic cable, an illustration from, of chance and purpose, 115
+
+Atoms, 37, 41, 88, 89, 90, 136
+
+Augustine, St.--on creation _causaliter et seminaliter_, 141, 207
+
+_Axolotl_, 195
+
+
+Baden-Powell, Prof.--on the nature of the First Cause, 276
+
+Bastian, Dr. H. C.--on spontaneous generation, 21, 50, 53
+
+_Bathybius Haeckelii_, 21
+
+Batrachians, appearance of, 225
+
+Bats, an evolutionary puzzle, 229, 257
+
+Bee, cell-making instinct, 156, 179
+
+Bickerton, Prof.,--on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+_Biogenesis_, 49, 50
+
+Blanchard, M.--on variation, 164;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 181;
+  on fecundity as a factor in survival, 188;
+  on the problem of creation, 268
+
+Bolingbroke, Viscount,--on the nature of the first cause, 273
+
+Bridgman, Laura, 77
+
+Bunsen, Chevalier,--on animal sounds and language, 74
+
+Butler, Bishop,--on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, 100
+
+
+Carruthers, Mr. W.--on specific stability of _Salix polaris_, 164;
+  on classification of plants, 214;
+  on the geological record, 216, 265;
+  on past history of plant-life, 216 _seq._; on
+  an assertion of Haeckel's, 221;
+  on the evidence supplied by fossil plants, 223
+
+Case,  Prof.--on the meaning of "fortuitous," 125
+
+Causation, principle of, 2, 87, 94, 107
+
+Cause, the First. See _First Cause_
+
+Chance, 110 _seq._, 151, 174
+
+Cicero--on the evidence for a Deity, 103
+
+Clerk-Maxwell, Prof.--on force and energy, 23n;
+  on Molecules, 90, 104;
+  on evidence of design, _ibid._
+
+Clifford, Prof. W. K.--on design in Nature, 101
+
+Clodd, Mr. E.--on atoms, 41
+
+Comte, Auguste--on materialism, 278
+
+Consciousness, origin of, 67
+
+_Cosmos_ and its Cause, 86 _seq._
+
+Croll, Mr.--on force and its determination, 94-96
+
+Crookes, Sir W.--on renovation of energy, 26;
+  on radium and radio-activity, 42, 43
+
+Cryptogamous plants, fossil history, 219
+
+Crystallization, 63, 64
+
+
+Darwin, Mr.--on the "law of continuity," 57;
+  on spontaneous generation, 58;
+  on the mental gulf between man and brute, 71;
+  on the origin of language, 79, 178;
+  on "creation," 91;
+  on the structure of the eye, 91;
+  on chance as a factor of the world, 116;
+  on pain and suffering as an objection to design, 119;
+  disclaims achievements attributed to him, 150;
+  his system, 153 _seq._ (see _Darwinism_);
+  his mode of arguing, 178;
+  dogmatism, 179;
+  pleads lack of knowledge as an argument, 182;
+  on single origin of every species, 210, 254;
+  on genealogy of the Horse, 259;
+  on the imperfection of the geological record, 264
+
+Darwinism, 149 _seq._;
+  false representations of, 149-151;
+  sketch of system, 151-157;
+  facts favouring, 158-160;
+  difficulties of, 160 _seq._;
+  explains no origins, 161;
+  ignores the prime factor, _ibid._;
+  improbabilities, 166, 173;
+  does not explain initial developments, 170 _seq._;
+  nor artistic ornamentation, 175;
+  specious arguments too easily forthcoming, 177;
+  does not account for organic progression, 187;
+  scientific opinions concerning, 198 _seq._, 281
+
+Dawson, Sir J. W.--on the first origin of life, 208;
+  on the history of animal life, 223; on genealogy of the _Equid�_, 247;
+  of the _Cetacea_, 257;
+  of bats,
+  258;
+  on lack of pal�ontological evidence for evolution, 260
+
+Design, evidence of, in Nature, 90, 97 _seq._;
+  Kant on the necessity of, 150
+
+Determination of force, its necessity, 94-96, 114
+
+Determinism of the will, 81 _seq._
+
+Development of organic types, 146
+
+Dicotyledons, appearance of, 220
+
+Diderot--on evidence of intelligence in Nature, 125
+
+_Dinotherium_, classification of, 259 n
+
+Dogs, their vocal expression of emotions, 73
+
+Du Bois-Reymond, Herr,--on the "Seven Enigmas," 31-33;
+  on the progress of human development, 68, 69;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+_Dysteleology_, 190
+
+
+Ear, structure of, 93
+
+_Electrons_, 42
+
+Elephant and Tortoise of Hindu astronomy, 107
+
+Embryology and Evolution, 158-160, 192 _seq._
+
+"Energy," 23; conservation of, _ibid._;
+  dissipation of, 24 _seq._;
+  renovation of, 26-28
+
+"Enigmas, the Seven," 32
+
+_Entropy_, 25
+
+_Equid�_. See _Horse_
+
+Ether, a constituent of the universe, 36
+
+Evil, Origin of, the darkest of mysteries, 120
+
+"Evolution," different meanings of term, 8;
+    as an operative law, 10-14;
+    eternal, 11;
+    as a philosophy, 22 _seq._;
+    formula of, 145
+  As a process, 45 _seq._
+  Organic, 142 _seq._;
+    essential characters of theory, 147, 206;
+    nature of evidence required, 208 _seq._;
+    history of in vegetable and animal kingdoms, 216 _seq._
+
+Eye, origin of, 91, 154
+  Helmholtz, on defects of, 91 n.;
+    structure of, 155 n.;
+    evolution of, 168
+
+
+Fabre, M.--on Darwin's facts, 200 n.;
+  on our ignorance of Nature, 203
+
+Faraday, Prof.--on gravitation, 125
+
+Final causality (Teleology), 98 _seq._
+
+First Cause, the object of inference, 96, 97;
+  nature of as shown by reason, 270 _seq._
+
+Fish, appearance of, 225;
+  problems presented by, 233
+
+Flight, problem of, 93
+
+Flower, Sir W.--on the extinct American horse, 254
+
+Force, nature of, 23
+
+Free-will, Prof. Haeckel on, 33, 81;
+  Dr. Johnson on, 84
+
+Fuegians, mental likeness to ourselves, 72
+
+
+Garnett, Prof.--on force, 23
+
+Gaudry, M.--on ancestry of whales, 257;
+ of bats, 258;
+ of proboscidians, 259
+
+Genera and species, 244 n.
+
+_Generatio aequivoca_, 65
+
+Generation, mysteries of, 123 _seq._
+
+Geological formations, succession of, 213
+
+Geological record, 216, 264, _seq._
+
+Giraffe, evolution of, 154
+
+Glass, fortuitously discovered, 115
+
+Goethe--on "iron law," 14
+
+Gore, Dr. G.--on machinery as excluding idea of design, 118
+
+"Grand Question," the, 96
+
+Grimthorpe, Lord (Sir E. Beckett)--on matter, 37; on the problem of flight, 93;
+  on evidences of purpose, 94;
+  on generation, 124;
+  on the structure of the eye, 155 n.
+
+Gymnosperms, appearance of, 219
+
+
+Haeckel, Prof. E.--on "rational view of the world," 10-14;
+  on the "magic word evolution," 16;
+  on scientific method, 18, 20;
+  on the law of substance, 13, 23;
+  on the conservation of energy, 23, 24, 26;
+  on the "Seven Enigmas," 33;
+  on the nature and properties of matter, 35, 39;
+  on the artificial manufacture of protoplasm, 59;
+  on free-will and determinism, 81;
+  on design in Nature, 90, 150;
+  on chance, 117;
+  on Monism, 128;
+  on annihilation as a desirable end, 130;
+  on the ultimate reality, 135;
+  unfounded claims on behalf of Darwin, 150;
+  bases arguments on lack of knowledge, 183;
+  on rudimentary organs and "Dysteleology," 190;
+  on single origin of every species, 210;
+  on the appearance of the _Apetal�_, 221;
+  invents geological "ante-periods," 236;
+  and intermediate forms, 261;
+  his pedigree of man, 261;
+  his method of solving the riddles of Nature, 264
+
+Heredity, 83, 99
+
+Herschel, Sir J.--on molecules as manufactured articles, 89;
+  on evidence of mind in Nature, 100;
+  on gravitation, 125
+
+_Hesperornis_, 171
+
+Heurtin, Marie, 77
+
+_Hippops_, 246, 252
+
+Hird, Mr. D.--on the omnipotence of Evolution, 14;
+  on transformations of force, 129
+
+Holland, Sir H.--on structure of ear, 93
+
+Homer, a "half-savage Greek," 69 n.
+
+_Homo alalus_, and _sapiens_, 81
+
+Horse, structure of, 94, 240
+  Genealogy of, 236, 241 _seq._
+
+Hudson, Dr.--on neglect of
+  study of present life in favour of evolutionary speculations, 185
+
+Humboldt, W. von--on human speech, 76
+
+Hutton, F. W.--on finite duration of the world, 2;
+  and of the universe, 28;
+  on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+Huxley, Prof.--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on the nature of science, 5;
+  on "Laws of Nature," 16-18;
+  on Evolution as a philosophy, 21, 22;
+  on matter, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on faith and verification, 47;
+  on the fundamental principle of Evolution, 48;
+  on spontaneous generation, 50-54;
+  on protoplasm, 59, 60;
+  on structure of the Horse, 93;
+  on theism and creation, 100;
+  on teleology, 102;
+  on theism and chance, 103;
+  on the non-existence of chance, 111;
+  on seeming waste in nature, 121;
+  on mind and matter, 133;
+  on Saurian birds, 172;
+  on _Dysteleology_, 191;
+  on embryology and �tiology, 197;
+  on the Darwinian theory, 200, 201;
+  on facts as the only sound basis of theory, 204;
+  on the fundamental doctrine of organic evolution, 206;
+  on evolutionary evidence, 235;
+  on Haeckel's "Ante-periods," 236;
+  claims pal�ontological evidence as demonstrative of Evolution, 239, 261;
+  his pedigree of the Horse, 236, 242 _seq._;
+  discussed, 244 _seq._
+
+_Hydra_, structure of, 146
+
+
+_Icthyornis_, 171
+
+_Inertia_, a property of matter, 39
+
+Inference, 5 n.; 96, 272
+
+Insects, insular, as an argument for Natural Selection, 154, 167
+
+Invertebrate life, history of, 225
+
+
+Johnson, Dr.--on free-will, 84
+
+Julius C�sar, his polydactyle charger, 241
+
+
+Kant--on necessity of design, 150
+
+Keller, Miss 77
+
+Kelvin, Lord (Sir W. Thomson),--on the dissipation of energy, 25, 26;
+  his Law of Parsimony, 98;
+  on science and theism, 104, 278
+
+
+Laing, Mr. S.--on matter and motion, 35
+
+Lamarck--on Nature's witness to God, 279
+
+Language, our "Rubicon," 73;
+  distinctively human, 73-78;
+  essential character, 74;
+  theories as to origin, 79
+
+Lankester, Prof. Ray--on evolution of _Proboscideae_, 259
+
+Laws of Nature--what? 16,
+  17, 86;
+  expressions of creative intelligence, 123, 277
+
+Lewes, Mr.--on Laws of Nature, 86
+
+Liddon, Canon--on Laws of Nature, 16
+
+Life had a beginning, 46;
+  origin of, 46-66;
+  laws of, 90
+
+Link forms wanting in Nature, 208 _seq._, 228 _seq._
+
+Lodge, Sir O.--on non-purposive Evolution, 202;
+  on anthropomorphism and the First Cause, 276
+
+Lydekker, Mr. R.--on pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Lyell, Sir C.--on the need of creation, 269
+
+
+Mallock, Mr. W.--on human conduct, 139
+
+Mammals, appearance of, 226;
+  problems suggested by, 255
+
+Man, faculties, 71 _seq._;
+  appearance of, 227
+
+Marsh, Prof.--on Evolution, 47;
+  on _Hippops_, 252
+
+Marshall, Prof. Milnes--on the teachings of Evolution, 15;
+  on embryology, 159;
+  on Haeckel's treatment of the same, 195
+
+Marsupials, first appearance, 226
+
+_Materia Prima_, 42 n
+
+Matter, 35;
+  indestructibility, 13, 23;
+  properties, 36 _seq._;
+  constitution, 37, 41 _seq._, 135;
+  and motion, 39;
+  dissolution of, 43;
+  and mind, 131 _seq._
+
+Max M�ller, Prof.--on language, 73, 75
+
+Mendel�eff's Periodic Law, 88
+
+Mind and matter, connexion of, 131 _seq._
+
+Mivart, Mr. St. G.--on the gulf between man and brute, 72;
+  on the essence of language, 74;
+  on theories as to its origin, 79;
+  on the ease with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on embryology of Salamander, 193;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with theory of Evolution by minute and gradual modification, 228, 230;
+  on evolution of the Horse, 255;
+  on the failure of apparent links, 267
+
+Mole, evolution of, 181
+
+Molecules, 88;
+  "manufactured articles," 89;
+  Clerk-Maxwell on, 90, 104
+
+Monism, 126 _seq._, 278;
+  and morality, 137;
+  and Truth, 138
+
+Monocotyledons, appearance of, 219
+
+Motion, as a property of matter, 39
+
+_Myriadism_, a better term for _Monism_, 136
+
+
+"Natural Selection," what it is, 152 _seq._;
+  its powers discussed, 165 _seq._;
+  can produce nothing, 168;
+  a misnomer, 174. See _Darwinism_.
+
+"Nature," 6
+
+Nebular hypothesis, 11, 45, 48
+
+Newman, Cardinal--on the nature of laws, 17;
+  on law and causality, 99
+
+Newton, Sir I., his laws of motion, 39;
+  on evidence for theism, 103
+
+_North British_ Reviewer--on the limits of variation, 162;
+  on the facility with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on Darwinism and geographical distribution, 184;
+  on the "maybe's" of Darwinism, _ibid._;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with evolutionary theory, 228
+
+
+Obrecht, Martha, 77
+
+_Ontogeny,_ 83 n.
+
+Organic progression--and Darwinism, 186;
+  not evidenced by pal�ontology, 234
+
+Organs, vestigial or rudimentary as an argument for evolution, 158, 189
+
+_Origin of Species_, appearance of, 151
+
+Owen, Sir R.--on the _Arch�opteryx_, 172
+
+
+Pain and suffering, as an objection to Design, 119, 121
+
+Pal�ontology--the only sound basis for evolutionary theory, 204;
+  its evidence adverse to progressive developments, 234
+
+Paley--his "watch argument" disproved by machine-made watches, 118
+
+Pasteur, M.--on spontaneous generation, 50;
+  on initial temperature of life, 57 n.
+
+Peacock's feathers and Natural Selection, 155 n., 175
+
+Perrier, M. E.--on the evidence for Evolution, 237
+
+Pettigrew, Mr.--on wings of birds, 93
+
+_Phylogeny_, 83 n.
+
+_Prothyle_, 42
+
+Protoplasm, 59-63
+
+Purpose and natural laws, 122
+
+
+Quatrefages, M. de--on life and non-life, 63;
+  on crystallization, 64;
+  on variation in Nature, 162;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 180, 182, 183;
+  on embryology, 194;
+  on absence of intermediate forms in Nature, 212, 229
+
+Quinton, M.--new doctrine of life development, 57 n.
+
+
+_Rana opisthodon_--embryology, 195
+
+Rayleigh, Lord--on atheistic science, 105;
+  on scientific authority, 109
+
+Reason generates speech, not _vice versa_, 76
+
+Reptiles, age of, 226
+
+Reptilian birds, 171
+
+Rivarol--on God and the world, 279
+
+Robin, M. Ch.--on Darwinism, 198
+
+Romanes, Prof.--on continuity and universality of natural causation, 29, 30;
+  on origin of language, 79;
+  on Monism, 129;
+  on the inadequacy of Natural Selection, 201;
+  on jealousy of admitting the Creator into creation, 277
+
+Roscoe, Sir H.--on artificial production of protoplasm, 62
+
+
+Salamander, embryological features, 193
+
+_Salix polaris_, its specific stability, 164, 222
+
+Saporta, Comte de--on parallel development of animal and vegetable life, 228;
+  on the problem of Creation, 268
+
+Schoolmen, the--on relation of soul and body, 132
+
+Scorpion, maternal and unfilial instincts, 122
+
+Selous, Mr. E.--exemplifies Monistic doctrines, 139 n.
+
+Sensation and consciousness,--origin of, 67
+
+Snakes, embryological features, 194
+
+Species, on evolutionary principles must each derive from a single origin, 210;
+  isolation of, 211;
+  and genera, 244 n.
+
+Specific stability in Nature, 164
+
+Spencer, Mr. Herbert--on the beginning of life, 56;
+  his "Formula of Evolution," 145;
+  on the process of organic evolution, 147
+
+Spontaneous Generation. See _Life, origin of_
+
+Stephen, Sir L.--on materialism, 78
+
+Stewart, Prof. Balfour--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on dissipation of energy, 25.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_
+
+Stewart and Tait--on self-evidence of theism, 104, 273
+
+Stirling, Mr.--on protoplasm, 59, 61
+
+Stokes, Sir G. G.--on evidence for design, 104
+
+Suarez--on creative power and natural law, 207
+
+Substance, law of, 13, 14, 22, 23, 33, 41, 118
+
+Survival of the fittest, and organic progression, 186
+
+
+Tait, Prof. P.--On the scope of science, 18, 20;
+  on force and energy, 23 n.;
+  on the properties of matter, 39;
+  on "pseudoscience," 40;
+  on scientific methods, 47;
+  on mechanical theories of life, 65.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_.
+
+Teleology--98 _seq._
+
+Theism, 97 _seq._, 277
+
+Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W.--on protoplasm, 60-62
+
+_Thyroid_ gland--its lesson, 191 n.
+
+Time, as a factor in Evolution, 80, 169
+
+Transformism, 142, etc.
+  See _Evolution, organic_
+
+_Triton alpestris_, 195
+
+Tyndall, Prof.--on the material origin of life, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on scientific method, 47;
+  on spontaneous generation, 54-56;
+  on the potentialities of matter, 54;
+  on mind and matter, 133
+
+
+Ungulates, structure of limbs, 241
+
+
+Variation, the basis of Darwin's calculations, 162;
+  its limitations, _ibid._;
+  minute at each stage, 165
+
+_Verbum mentale_, 76
+
+Vines, Prof. S. H.--on speculations and facts, 185;
+  on the present status of the Darwinian theory, 202;
+  on our present knowledge, 237
+
+Virchow, Prof.--on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on spontaneous generation, 65
+
+Vogt, Carl--on embryology, 194;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+
+Wallace, Mr. A. R.--on breaches of natural causation, 64;
+  on the origin of life, _ibid._;
+  on the origin of animal life, 69, 70
+
+Weismann, Prof.--on our intellectual need for causality, 101
+
+Weldon, Prof.--on Huxley's scientific method, 21, 197
+
+Whales, appearance of, 257
+
+Whitney, Prof.--on origin of language, 79
+
+Will, the only cause known to us, 99, 100.
+  See also _Free-will_
+
+Williamson, Prof. W. C.--on missing links, 231;
+  on an unrecognized factor in life-developments, 232;
+  on the geological history of fishes, 233;
+  on genealogy of the _equid�_, 251;
+  on lack of pal�ontological support for the Evolution theory, 260
+
+Wings, as machines, 93
+
+Wollaston, Mr.--on "Nature" as an agent, 108
+
+World, beginning of, 1
+
+
+_Zeuglodon_, 257
+
+
+
+
+A LIST OF WORKS
+
+MAINLY BY
+
+ROMAN CATHOLIC
+
+WRITERS
+
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+                                                   PAGE
+
+THE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY                               2
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH                                   3
+
+FOR THE CLERGY AND STUDENTS                           4
+
+BIOGRAPHY                                             6
+
+HISTORY                                               8
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHURCH                          8
+
+EDUCATIONAL                                           9
+
+STONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES                      10
+
+POETRY, FICTION, ETC.                                10
+
+NOVELS BY M. E. FRANCIS (MRS. FRANCIS BLUNDELL)      11
+
+WORKS BY THE VERY REV. CANON SHEEHAN, D.D.           11
+
+WORKS BY CARDINAL NEWMAN                             12
+
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
+
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
+
+91-93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
+
+8 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY
+
+303 BOWBAZAR STREET, CALCUTTA.
+
+1909
+
+The Westminster Library.
+
+A Series of Manuals for Catholic Priests and Students.
+
+Edited by the Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD, President of St. Edmund's
+College, and the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE TRADITION OF SCRIPTURE: its Origin, Authority and Interpretation. By
+the Very Rev. WILLIAM BARRY, D.D., Canon of St. Chads, Birmingham. Crown
+8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By the Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, Bishop of
+Newport. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS: An Introduction to Hagiography. From the
+French of P�re H. DELEHAYE, S.J., Bollandist. Translated by Mrs. V. M.
+CRAWFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE PRIEST'S STUDIES. By the Very Rev. THOMAS SCANNELL, D.D., Canon of
+Southwark Cathedral, Editor of _The Catholic Dictionary_. Crown 8vo. 3s.
+6d. _net._
+
+The following Volumes are in Preparation:--
+
+THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR. By the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS. By the Rev. Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.
+
+THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. By the Right Rev. Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A.
+
+THE BREVIARY. By the Rev. EDWARD MYERS, M.A.
+
+THE INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. By the Rev. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
+
+THE MASS. By the Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Ph.D., D.D.
+
+
+The Catholic Church.
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WITHIN. With a Preface by His Eminence CARDINAL
+VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+LETTERS FROM THE BELOVED CITY. TO S. B. FROM PHILIP. By the Rev. KENELM
+DIGBY BEST. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+CONTENTS.--Why Philip writes these Letters to S. B.--S. B.'s
+Difficulties fully stated--The Good Shepherd--I come that they may have
+life--Feed my Lambs--Feed my Sheep--One Fold and One Shepherd--Christ's
+Mother and Christ's
+Church--Unity--Holiness--Catholicity--Apostolicity--Our Lady's
+Dowry--War--Pacification.
+
+LENT AND HOLY WEEK: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. By
+HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+BISHOP GORE AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. By Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 8vo.
+Paper covers, 6d. _net_; cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+ASPECTS OF ANGLICANISM; or, Some Comments on Certain Incidents in the
+'Nineties. By Mgr. JAMES MOYES, D.D., Canon of Westminster Cathedral.
+Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._ Paper Covers 2s. _net._
+
+*** _This book is a free comment from a Roman Catholic
+standpoint upon certain incidents in the religious life of Anglicanism
+in the 'Nineties. It deals incidentally with the Lambeth Judgment, and
+with the question of continuity. It represents the criticism which, from
+the point of view of history and theology, some of the later
+developments of Anglicanism would suggest to a Roman Catholic mind._
+
+DIVINE AUTHORITY. By J. F. SCHOLFIELD, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge,
+late Rector of St. Michael's, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+INFALLIBILITY: a Paper read before the Society of St. Thomas of
+Canterbury. By the Rev. VINCENT McNABB, O.P. Crown 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+_net._
+
+SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-DISCIPLINE. By the Rev. B. W. MATURIN. Crown
+8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+LAWS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+THE INNER LIFE OF THE SOUL. Short Spiritual Messages for the
+Ecclesiastical Year. By S. L. EMERY. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. _net._
+
+
+For the Clergy and Students.
+
+THE TRAINING OF A PRIEST: an Essay on Clerical Education. By the Rev.
+JOHN TALBOT SMITH, LL.D., President of the Catholic Summer School of
+America. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+SCHOLASTICISM, Old and New: an Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy,
+Medi�val and Modern. By M. de WULF, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy
+and Letters, Professor at the University of Louvain. Translated by P.
+COFFEY, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Maynooth College, Ireland. 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By SYLVESTER JOSEPH HUNTER, S.J. Crown
+8vo. Three vols., 6s. 6d. each.
+
+THE SERMON OF THE SEA, and Other Studies. By the Rev. ROBERT KANE, S.J.
+Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
+
+STUDIES ON THE GOSPELS. By VINCENT ROSE, O.P., Professor in the
+University of Fribourg. Authorised English Version, by ROBERT FRASER,
+D.D., Domestic Prelate to H.H. Pius X. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE. By AUSTIN O'MALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.,
+Pathologist and Ophthalmologist to Saint Agnes's Hospital, Philadelphia;
+and JAMES J. WALSH, Ph.D., LL.D., Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the
+New York Polytechnic School for Graduates in Medicine. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+*** _The term "Pastoral Medicine" may be said to represent that
+part of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those
+divisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his
+practice. This book is primarily intended for Roman Catholic
+confessors._
+
+THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. By Rev. MICHAEL CRONIN, M.A., D.D., Ex-Fellow,
+Royal University of Ireland; Professor, Clonliffe College, Dublin. 8vo.
+
+Vol. 1., General Ethics. 12s. 6d. net.
+
+THE KEY TO THE WORLD'S PROGRESS: an Essay on Historical Logic, being
+some Account of the Historical Significance of the Catholic Church. By
+CHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper covers, 6d.
+
+*** _The object of this book is to give to the logic and
+history of Newman an economic or sociological setting, and thus to show
+that "for the explanation of World-history we must first have the true
+theory of the Christian Church and her life through eighteen centuries".
+Part I. states briefly the problems which the philosophy of history
+seeks to resolve. Part II. presents the solution offered by Christianity
+and takes the form of an historical analysis of the principles by which
+the Church has been guided in her relations with the world._
+
+"IN THY COURTS" (La Vocation � la Vie Religieuse). Translated from the
+French of LOUIS VIGNAT, S.J. By MATTHEW L. FORTIER, S.J. 18mo. 1s. 6d.
+_net._ In paper covers, 1s. _net._
+
+CORDS OF ADAM: a Series of Devotional Essays with an Apologetic Aim. By
+the Rev. THOMAS J. GERRARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+"I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bonds of
+love."--_Osee_ xi. 4.
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER. An Enquiry how far Modern Science
+has altered the aspect of the Problem of the Universe. By JOHN GERARD,
+S.J., F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper Covers. 6d.
+
+THE MONTH; A Catholic Magazine. Conducted by FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF
+JESUS. Published Monthly. 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+
+INDEX TO THE MONTH, 1864-1908. Arranged under Subjects and Authors. 8vo.
+Cloth. 3s. 6d. _net._ Interleaved with Writing Paper. 5s. _net._
+
+
+Biography.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. DOMINIC, FOUNDER OF THE FRIAR PREACHERS. By AUGUSTA
+THEODOSIA DRANE. With 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER COMPANIONS. With a
+Translation of her Treatise on Consummate Perfection. By the same
+Author. With 10 Illustrations. Two vols. 8vo. 15s.
+
+A MEMOIR OF MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D. (AUGUSTA THEODOSIA DRANE),
+some time Prioress Provincial of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters
+of St. Catherine of Siena, Stone. With portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+LIFE OF ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, DUCHESS OF THURINGIA. By the COUNT DE
+MONTALEMBERT, Peer of France, Member of the French Academy. Translated
+by FRANCIS DEMING HOYT. Large Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. _net._
+
+HISTORY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, Founder of the Congregation of the
+Mission (Vincentians), and of the Sisters of Charity. By Monseigneur
+BOUGAUD, Bishop of Laval. Translated from the Second French Edition by
+the Rev. JOSEPH BRADY, C.M. With an Introduction by His Eminence
+CARDINAL VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+HENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES. By ALICE SHIELD. With an
+Introduction by ANDREW LANG. With Photogravure Frontispiece and 13 other
+Illustrations. 8vo. 12s. 6d. _net._
+
+EXPLORERS IN THE NEW WORLD BEFORE AND AFTER COLUMBUS, and THE STORY OF
+THE JESUIT MISSIONS OF PARAGUAY. By MARION McMURROUGH MULHALL, Member of
+The Roman Arcadia. With pre-Columban Maps. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CARDINAL WISEMAN. By WILFRID WARD. With 3
+Portraits. Two vols. Cr. 8vo. 10s. _net._
+
+AUBREY DE VERE: a Memoir based on his unpublished Diaries and
+Correspondence. By the same Author. With Two Photogravure Portraits and
+2 other Illustrations. 8vo. 14s. _net._
+
+TEN PERSONAL STUDIES. By the same Author. With 10 Portraits. 8vo. 10s.
+6d. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--Arthur James Balfour--Three Notable Editors: Delane, Hutton,
+Knowles--Some Characteristics of Henry Sidgwick--Robert, Earl of
+Lytton--Father Ignatius Ryder--Sir M. E. Grant Duff's Diaries--Leo
+XIII.--The Genius of Cardinal Wiseman--John Henry Newman--Newman and
+Manning--Appendix.
+
+SOME PAPERS OF LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, 12th BARON, COUNT OF THE HOLY
+ROMAN EMPIRE, Etc. With a Preface by the Dowager LADY ARUNDELL OF
+WARDOUR. With Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+HISTORICAL LETTERS AND MEMOIRS OF SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, 1625-1793. By the
+Rev. W. FORBES LEITH, S.J. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2
+vols. Medium 8vo. 24s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS. By FATHER IGNATIUS RYDER. Edited by the Rev. F. BACCHUS. 8vo.
+
+CONTENTS.--_Biographical and Historical._ 1. A Jesuit Reformer and
+Poet--2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)--3. Savonarola--4.
+M. Emery--5. The Great Schism. _General._--6. Auricular Confession--7.
+The Pope and the Anglican Archbishops--8. Ritualism, Romanism, etc.--9.
+Some Ecclesiastical Miracles--10. Irresponsible Opinion--11. The Ethics
+of War--12. The Passion of the Past--13. Reminiscences of a Jail
+Chaplain.
+
+
+History.
+
+HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN NORTH AMERICA: Colonial and Federal.
+By THOMAS HUGHES of the same Society. Royal 8vo.
+
+Text. Volume I. From the First Colonization, 1580, till 1645. With 3
+Maps and 3 Facsimiles. 15s. _net._
+
+Documents. Volume I. Part I. Nos. 1-140 (1605-1838). 21s. _net._
+Documents. Volume I. Part II. [_In the Press._
+
+THE INQUISITION: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power
+of the Church. By the Abb� E. VACANDARD. Translated from the French by
+the Rev. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, C.S.P. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BISHOP CHALLONER, 1691-1781. By EDWIN H. BURTON,
+D.D., F.R.Hist.S., Vice-President of St. Edmund's College. With 34
+Portraits and other Illustrations. In two volumes. 8vo.
+
+THE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN ENGLAND, 1781-1803. By BERNARD WARD,
+F.R.Hist.S., President of St. Edmund's College, Ware. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s.
+_net._
+
+
+The Beginnings of the Church.
+
+A Series of Histories of the First Century.
+
+By the Abb� CONSTANT FOUARD, Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the
+Faculty of Theology at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated by GEORGE F. X.
+GRIFFITH.
+
+THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. A Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
+With an Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. With 3 Maps. Two vols. Crown
+8vo. 14s.
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. 1s. _net._ Paper Covers. 6d. _net._
+
+ST. PETER AND THE FIRST YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. With 3 Maps. Crown 8vo.
+9s.
+
+ST. PAUL AND HIS MISSIONS. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+THE LAST YEARS OF ST. PAUL. With 5 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+ST. JOHN AND THE CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Educational.
+
+A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. By E. WYATT-DAVIES, M.A. With
+14 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OUTLINES OF BRITISH HISTORY. By the same Author. With 85 Illustrations
+and 13 Maps. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
+
+A HISTORY OF IRELAND FOR AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. From the Earliest
+Times to the Death of O'Connell. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. With specially
+constructed Map and 160 Illustrations, including Facsimile in Full
+Colours of an Illuminated Page of the Gospel Book of MacDurnan, A.D.
+850. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.
+
+_This is the authorised Irish History for Catholic Schools and Colleges
+throughout Australasia._
+
+HISTORICAL ATLAS OF INDIA, for the Use of High Schools, Colleges and
+Private Students. By CHARLES JOPPEN, S.J. 26 Maps in Colours. Post 4to.
+3s. net.
+
+DELECTA BIBLICA. Compiled from the Vulgate Edition of the Old Testament,
+and arranged for the use of Beginners in Latin. By a SISTER OF NOTRE
+DAME. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC. By G. H. JOYCE, S.J., M.A., Oxford, Professor of
+Logic at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+PARLEZ-VOUS FRAN�AIS? OU LE FRAN�AIS ENSEIGN� D'APR�S LA M�THODE
+DIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustr� par N. M. W. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+GRAMMAR LESSONS. By the PRINCIPAL OF ST. MARY'S HALL, Liverpool. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+THE CLASS TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION. By the same Author. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+QUICK AND DEAD? To Teachers. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+
+Stonyhurst Philosophical Series.
+
+Edited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.
+
+LOGIC. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+FIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+MORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown
+8vo. 5s.
+
+GENERAL METAPHYSICS. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+PSYCHOLOGY, EMPIRICAL AND RATIONAL. By MICHAEL MAHER, S.J., D.Litt.,
+M.A. Lond. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+NATURAL THEOLOGY. By BERNARD BOEDDER, M.A., S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+POLITICAL ECONOMY. By CHAS. S. DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Poetry, Fiction, etc.
+
+A MYSTERY PLAY IN HONOUR OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD. By the Rev. ROBERT
+HUGH BENSON. With Illustrations, Appendices, and Stage Directions. Cr.
+8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Words only. With a few notes. 6d. net.
+
+STORIES ON THE ROSARY. By LOUISE EMILY DOBR�E. Parts I., II., III. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d. each.
+
+A TORN SCRAP BOOK. Talks and Tales illustrative of the "Our Father". By
+GENEVI�VE IRONS. With a Preface by the Rev. R. HUGH BENSON. Crown 8vo.
+2s. 6d.
+
+MARIALE NOVUM: a Series of Sonnets on the Titles of Our Lady's Litany.
+By MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. Printed on hand-made paper, and
+bound in art green canvas, with cover design in blue and gilt, gilt top.
+Pott 4to. 3s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 5s. _net._
+
+ONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. WILFRID WARD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+OUT OF DUE TIME. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GREAT POSSESSIONS. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+
+Novels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell).
+
+SIMPLE ANNALS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+DORSET DEAR: Idylls of Country Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+LYCHGATE HALL: a Romance. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+CHRISTIAN THAL: a Story of Musical Life. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE MANOR FARM. With Frontispiece by Claude C. du Pr� Cooper. Crown 8vo.
+6s.
+
+FIANDER'S WIDOW. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+PASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+YEOMAN FLEETWOOD. Crown 8vo. 3s. _net._
+
+Works by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.
+
+LISHEEN; or, The Test of the Spirits. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+LUKE DELMEGE. A Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GLENANAAR: a Story of Irish Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE BLINDNESS OF THE REVEREND DR. GRAY; or, the Final Law: a Novel of
+Clerical Life. 6s.
+
+"LOST ANGEL OF A RUINED PARADISE": a Drama of Modern Life. Crown 8vo.
+3s. 6d.
+
+PARERGA: being a Companion Volume to "Under the Cedars and the Stars".
+Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. _net._
+
+EARLY ESSAYS AND LECTURES. Cr. 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--_Essays._ Religious Instruction in Intermediate Schools--In a
+Dublin Art Gallery--Emerson--Free-Thought in America--German
+Universities (Three Essays)--German and Gallic Muses--Augustinian
+Literature--The Poetry of Matthew Arnold--Recent Works on St.
+Augustine--Aubrey de Vere (a Study). _Lectures._ Irish Youth and High
+Ideals--The Two Civilisations--The Golden Jubilee of O'Connell's
+Death--Our Personal and Social Responsibilities--The Study of Mental
+Science--Certain Elements of Character--The Limitations and
+Possibilities of Catholic Literature.
+
+
+Cardinal Newman's Works.
+
+1. SERMONS.
+
+PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR, from the
+"Parochial and Plain Sermons". Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, between 1826
+and 1843. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCOURSES TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OCCASIONAL SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+2. TREATISES.
+
+THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+UNIVERSITY TEACHING considered in nine discourses. Being the First Part
+of "The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated". With a Preface by
+the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. _net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+A GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. AN INDEXED SYNOPSIS OF NEWMAN'S
+"GRAMMAR OF ASSENT". By the Rev. JOHN J. TOOHEY, S.J. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+3. HISTORICAL.
+
+HISTORICAL SKETCHES. Three vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+VOL. I.--The Turks in their Relation to Europe--- Marcus Tullius
+Cicero--Apollonius of Tyana--Primitive Christianity.
+
+VOL. II.--The Church of the Fathers--St. Chrysostom--Theodoret--Mission
+of St. Benedict--Benedictine Schools.
+
+VOL. III.--Rise and Progress of Universities (originally published as
+"Office and Work of Universities")--Northmen and Normans in England and
+Ireland--Medi�val Oxford--Convocation of Canterbury.
+
+THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. Reprinted from "Historical Sketches". Vol.
+II. With a Preface by the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s.
+_net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+4. ESSAYS.
+
+TWO ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture
+and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame? 6. An
+Argument for Christianity.
+
+ESSAYS, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two vols., with notes. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Mennais. 5.
+Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican
+Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Huntingdon. 10.
+Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Antichrist of Protestants.
+12. Milman's View of Christianity. 13. Reformation of the XI. Century.
+14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble.
+
+5. THEOLOGICAL.
+
+THE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SELECT TREATISES OF ATHANASIUS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+TRACTS: THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. Dissertatiuncul�. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
+Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.
+Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture.
+
+6. POLEMICAL.
+
+THE VIA MEDIA OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+Vol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. Vol. II. Occasional Letters
+and Tracts.
+
+DIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I.
+Twelve Lectures. Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed
+Virgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.
+
+PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+Pocket Edition. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 3s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. Sewed, 6d. _net._
+
+_The "Pocket" Edition and the "Popular" Edition of this book contain a
+letter, hitherto unpublished, written by Cardinal Newman to Canon
+Flanagan in 1857, which may be said to contain in embryo the "Apologia"
+itself._
+
+7. LITERARY.
+
+VERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DREAM OF GERONTIUS. 16mo. Sewed, 6d. Cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+School Edition, with Introduction and Notes by Maurice Francis Egan,
+A.M., LL.D., Professor of English Language and Literature in the
+Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. With Portrait. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+Presentation Edition, with an Introduction specially written for this
+Edition by E. B(L). With Photogravure Portrait of Cardinal Newman, and 5
+other Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, bound in cream cloth, with gilt
+top. 3s. _net._
+
+With Fac-similes of the original Fair Copy and of portions of the first
+rough draft. Together with a Biographical Sketch of the Rev. John
+Gordon, of the Congregation of the Oratory, to whom the poem is
+inscribed, containing an appreciation by Cardinal Newman. Imperial
+folio. 31s. 6d. _net._
+
+*** _This issue is restricted to 525 copies, of which 500 are
+for sale._
+
+LOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+CALLISTA: A Tale of the Third Century. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+8. DEVOTIONAL.
+
+MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. Part I. Meditations for the Month of May.
+Novena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. Meditations
+and Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. Part III. Meditations
+on Christian Doctrine. Conclusion. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Also in Three Parts as follows. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. _net_ each.
+
+Part I. THE MONTH OF MAY.
+
+Part II. STATIONS OF THE CROSS.
+
+Part III. MEDITATIONS ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
+
+
+LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE
+ENGLISH CHURCH. With a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's
+request, by ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+ADDRESSES TO CARDINAL NEWMAN, WITH HIS REPLIES, 1879-81. Edited by the
+Rev. W. P. NEVILLE (Cong. Orat.). With Portrait Group. Oblong crown 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] _Collected Essays_, i. 35.
+
+[2] _Lectures on Evolution_, Cheap Edition, p. 16.
+
+[3] _Conservation of Energy_, � 210, p. 153.
+
+[4] F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., _The Lesson of Evolution_ (1902), pp. 9-11.
+
+[5] _Nineteenth Century_, February, 1889. p. 173.
+
+[6] This term is now applied almost exclusively to _physical science_,
+or that whose province is the observation of phenomena and inferences
+directly deducible from them. To avoid confusion, this sense of the word
+"Science" will be here adopted: it is nevertheless objectionable
+inasmuch as it implies that--as Professor Huxley following Hume would
+have it--sound knowledge is restricted, outside the field of
+mathematics, to "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and
+existence." But although all premisses or data of inference come to us
+first through the gates of sense, there is much, beyond the limits
+within which sensible experience is confined, to a knowledge of which
+inference can lead us, and of which we become certain before experience
+can verify what we have thus learnt. Thus a chipped flint or a fragment
+of pottery is universally recognized as evidencing the work of man: a
+single page of Virgil would suffice--apart from all other
+information--to prove its author to have been both a poet and a scholar:
+the shipwrecked mariner cast on an unknown shore argued soundly from the
+sight of a gibbet that he had reached a civilized land ruled by law. But
+more than this, Science herself proceeds on this principle to the
+recognition not only of forces, the character of which is known by
+previous experience, but of others concerning which she knows nothing at
+all, except through the very effects from which she argues. Thus, as all
+bodies left free are found to draw towards one another in a certain
+mode, it is concluded with absolute confidence that there is a force
+making them do so, although this is in itself utterly imperceptible, and
+is known only by the way in which bodies behave under what must be its
+influence. Yet, who questions the existence of Gravitation? In like
+manner, the phenomena of light force us to admit the existence of the
+Ether, as the medium through which its waves are transmitted. Yet, we
+are compelled to attribute to this medium qualities apparently so
+incompatible that, as the late Lord Salisbury said, Ether remains, "a
+half discovered entity." But little as we can realize its nature, we
+have no doubt that such a medium exists.
+
+[7] "Value of the Natural History Sciences" (_Lay Sermons_), p. 75.
+
+[8] Italics his.
+
+[9] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, English translation,
+1903, Preface, p. vii.
+
+[10] _Riddle of the Universe_, Cheap English Edition, p. 2.
+
+[11] _ibid._, p. 85.
+
+[12] And also, it should be added, travelling bodily through space with
+a movement of "translation."
+
+[13] _Ibid._
+
+[14] _Ibid._, p. 2.
+
+[15] The 15th Chapter of Haeckel's _Natural History of Creation_ is
+devoted to this point.
+
+[16] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 32.
+
+[17] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 5.
+
+[18] _Ibid._, p. 78.
+
+[19] _Ibid._, p. 86.
+
+[20] _Ibid._, 134.
+
+[21] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 230.
+
+[22] _Presidential Address_, _Section D_, _Zoology_, Leeds, 1890.
+
+[23] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 2.
+
+[24] _Ibid._, p. 83.
+
+[25] "Pseudo-Scientific Realism," _Collected Essays_, i, 68, 74-78.
+
+[26] Newman, _Grammar of Assent_, p. 72. A "Law of Nature," as has
+already been said, is simply a statement of what _de facto_ has always
+been found to occur under certain conditions, and may consequently be
+expected again. It is obvious however that such expectation is
+implicitly based on the existence of some cause capable of ensuring the
+result.
+
+[27] "The Teaching of Natural Philosophy," _Contemporary Review_, Jan.,
+1878.
+
+[28] _Lay Sermons_, p. 83.
+
+[29] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[30] See Wasmann "Gedanken zur Entwicklungslehre," _Stimmen aus
+Maria-Laach_, vol. 63, p. 298.
+
+[31] _Contemporary Review_, ut sup., p. 301.
+
+[32] Professor Weldon, F.R.S., in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_.
+
+[33] _Collected Essays_, v. 41.
+
+[34] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 75.
+
+[35] Professor Garnett in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. By "Force" is
+understood "any cause which tends to alter a body's natural state of
+rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line." Of the nature of such
+causes science professes to know very little, and as Clerk-Maxwell, who
+knew as much as most men, sang apropos of a lecture of Professor Tait's:
+
+    ... Tait writes in lucid symbols clear one small equation;
+    And Force becomes of Energy a mere space-variation.
+
+
+[36] Balfour Stewart, _Conservation of Energy_, � 115; by Clerk-Maxwell,
+_apud_ Garnett, _ut sup._
+
+[37] Tyndall, _Fragments of Science_, 5th Edition, p. 23.
+
+[38] _Conservation of Energy_, � 209.
+
+[39] Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin.
+
+[40] March 29, 1888.
+
+[41] So of another effort in the same direction Capt. Hutton tells us:
+"The last champion in the field is Professor A. W. Bickerton, who thinks
+he has found a way in which this dismal conclusion, as he considers it,
+may be averted. But he is not very sure about it, and has to assume:
+first, that space contains now and always will contain, a large quantity
+of cosmic dust scattered through it with some approach to uniformity;
+and secondly, that the Universe consists of an infinite number of what
+he calls 'cosmic systems,' travelling through space, constantly throwing
+off dust in all directions and occasionally colliding. As all this is
+pure assumption and highly improbable, I cannot think that Professor
+Bickerton has brought forward any serious objection to the theory of the
+dissipation of energy, and his hypothesis must be added to the list of
+failures." (_Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14, _n._)
+
+[42] _Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14.
+
+[43] _Darwin and after Darwin_, p. 17.
+
+[44] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[45] _�ber die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben Weltr�thsel_,
+Leipzic, 1882.
+
+[46] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Du Bois-Reymond does not say that they are soluble, but only that
+he cannot pronounce them "transcendental."
+
+[48] Samuel Laing, _Modern Science and Modern Thought_, Cheap Edition,
+p. 19.
+
+[49] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 86.
+
+[50] _Ibid._
+
+[51] P. 78.
+
+[52] P. 64.
+
+[53] _Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 23.
+
+[54] _Belfast Address_, 1874.
+
+[55] _Lay Sermons._ "On the Physical Basis of Life," p. 143.
+
+[56] Professor Tait, _Properties of Matter_, � 108.
+
+[57] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 301.
+
+[58] _Story of Creation_, p. 11.
+
+[59] _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1903, p. 399.
+
+[60] Or "primal stuff." This looks remarkably like the old _Materia
+Prima_ of the Schoolmen translated into Greek.
+
+[61] _Ibid._ _The Revelations of Radium._
+
+[62] _Ibid._, p. 398.
+
+{_Note._--It is often assumed that the composite character of the
+atom--if fully established--must upset the Atomic Theory. This is not
+so; all that the new hypothesis does is to go further back in accounting
+for the Atomic Theory, and for all practical purposes things remain
+exactly as they were; except, indeed, that the dissolution of matter
+does away with what was held as one of the most assured conclusions of
+science.}
+
+[63] The Nebular Hypothesis itself is, of course, far from being an
+established certainty, and is not devoid of grave difficulties. Into
+these, however, it is not necessary now to enter.
+
+[64] _Apud_ Gaynor, _The New Materialism_, p. 83.
+
+[65] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[66] _Apud_ Gaynor, p. 84.
+
+[67] Professor Marsh.
+
+[68] Professor Dewar at Belfast, 1902.
+
+[69] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, 3rd Edition, p. 6.
+
+[70] Gaynor, p. 102.
+
+[71] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[72] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 305.
+
+[73] Being the year in which this passage was written.
+
+[74] Viz. that of the derivation of life from life alone, as opposed to
+_Abiogenesis_, or its production from lifeless matter.
+
+[75] See _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation," for a full
+account.
+
+[76] March 18, 1863. _Life and Letters_, i. 352.
+
+[77] April 30, 1870. _Ibid._ ii. 17.
+
+[78] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 238.
+
+[79] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[80] _Evolution and the Origin of Life_, 1874, p. 23.
+
+[81] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[82] _Fragments of Science._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[83] _Ibid._ "Scientific use of the imagination."
+
+[84] _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation."
+
+[85] _Ibid._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[86] _Ibid._ "Vitality."
+
+[87] _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1886, p. 769.
+
+[88] Italics mine.
+
+[89] It has been established by Pasteur and others that the highest
+temperature at which organic life is possible is 45� _Centigrade_ (113�
+_Fahrenheit_). When the globe had cooled to this point from its
+primitive molten condition, the epoch of terrestrial life commenced.
+
+According to what is perhaps the latest theory, that of M. Quinton, the
+temperature immediately below this, 44� _Centigrade_, remains always the
+best for living things, and those creatures are highest in the scale of
+life, and consequently the most developed, which have contrived means of
+keeping their internal heat at, or about, this level, despite the
+refrigeration of their surroundings. In their blood-heat M. Quinton
+therefore finds an absolute rule for fixing the relative rank of organic
+forms, and the date of their appearance; those whose blood is warmest
+being the most recently evolved. The results of this new system are
+sufficiently startling. Birds are to be classed as the highest and
+newest of all; while man, with the other _Primates_, has to take a much
+lower place, the ungulates, including the horse and donkey, and the
+carnivora, as dogs and cats, being his superiors. (_La Revue des Id�es_,
+January 15, 1904, pp. 29 seq.)
+
+[90] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[91] To Sir J. D. Hooker, March 29, 1863.
+
+[92] To V. Carus, November 21, 1866.
+
+[93] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[94] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[95] _As regards Protoplasm_, p. 21.
+
+[96] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[97] Printed in _Lay Sermons_.
+
+[98] _Nature_, June 5, 1902, p. 121.
+
+[99] _Id. ibid._
+
+[100] _Op. cit._ p. 27.
+
+[101] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1887.
+
+[102] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 66.
+
+[103] _Op. cit._ ii. 63.
+
+[104] _Darwinism_, p. 474.
+
+[105] The other stages presenting similar difficulties are the 5th and
+6th of Du Bois-Reymond's Enigmas, viz. the introduction of sensation or
+consciousness (animal life), and of rational thought and speech.
+
+[106] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 298.
+
+[107] _Die sieben Weltr�thsel_, D. 82.
+
+[108] Professor Huxley, it must be remarked, speaks of Homer as a "half
+savage Greek" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 12), and intimates a mild wonder that
+such a being could share our feelings in presence of nature to so large
+an extent as his poems testify. This is undoubtedly a fine example of
+the good conceit of ourselves which the pursuit of science is rather apt
+to produce.
+
+[109] _Darwinism_, p. 475.
+
+[110] _Descent of Man_, c. ii.
+
+[111] _Ibid._ 54.
+
+[112] In his paper read before the British Association at Oxford in
+1847.
+
+[113] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 89.
+
+[114] See Mivart, _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 166.
+
+[115] See Louis Arnould, _Une �me en prison_, and article "An imprisoned
+Soul," by the Ctesse. de Courson, _The Month_, January, 1902, p. 82.
+
+[116] _Descent of Man_, i. 57.
+
+[117] i.e. ape-like.
+
+[118] Quoted by Romanes, _Mental Evolution in Man_.
+
+[119] _Ibid._, p. 371.
+
+[120] _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 385.
+
+[121] _Op. cit._ p. 379.
+
+[122] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 46.
+
+[123] "Ontogeny" signifies the genesis of the individual, "Phylogeny"
+that of the race. Accordingly, when rendered into ordinary language,
+declarations such as these, unsupported as they are by any evidence, are
+found to mean that the development of the individual, tells us all about
+the development of the individual, and the development of the race all
+about that of the race. Is it really supposed, as it would seem to be,
+that such points are scientifically settled by translating terms into
+Greek?
+
+[124] _Lavengro_, passim.
+
+[125] _Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy_, p. 38.
+
+[126] _British Association Lecture_, 1873.
+
+[127] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 93.
+
+[128] _Origin of Species_ (5th Edition), p. 226.
+
+[129] Afterwards (April 17, 1863) Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker,
+"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
+Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by
+some wholly unknown process."
+
+[130] At a later period Mr. Darwin modified his views as to what he
+still termed "that wondrous organ the human eye," writing thus (_Descent
+of Man_, ii. 166): "We know what Helmholtz, the highest authority in
+Europe on the subject, has said about the human eye: that if an optician
+had sold him an instrument so carelessly made, he would have thought
+himself fully justified in returning it."
+
+It is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (_Vortr�ge und
+Reden_, i. 253, etc., English Edition, "_Popular Scientific Lectures_,"
+pp. 219, etc.), adding that "the eye has every possible defect that can
+be found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to
+itself." These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a
+good deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the
+first place, that in speaking as above he did so "from the narrow but
+legitimate point of view of an optician." Having then enumerated all the
+defects in question, he continues--"In an artificial camera, all these
+irregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not
+so, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of
+extreme difficulty to detect them." He adds that men in general not only
+are unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced
+to credit it. Also that they "almost always affect those portions of the
+field of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our
+attention." What is still more to the point, he observes, that the
+defects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is
+practical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical
+instrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that
+the eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or
+telescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they
+lack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes.
+"As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds
+Helmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very
+limitations set to its defects.... A man of any sense would not chop
+firewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the
+optical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to
+injury and slower in its development." Helmholtz therefore concludes
+that the eye is a product which "the wisest Wisdom may have
+pre-designed."
+
+It thus comes very much to Pope's solution:
+
+    Why has not man a microscopic eye?
+    For this plain reason: man is not a fly,--
+
+and in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about
+returning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap,
+unworthy of such a man.
+
+[131] _Life of C. Darwin_, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin,
+November 23, 1859.
+
+[132] _Animal Locomotion_ (International Scientific Series), p. 180.
+
+[133] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 69.
+
+[134] _Lectures on Evolution_ (Cheap Edition), p. 37.
+
+[135] _Philosophical Basis of Evolution_, passim.
+
+[136] By a _Final Cause_ is meant the predetermined result or end,
+towards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the
+ultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the
+_Final Cause_ of striking a match: while the striking of the match is
+the _Efficient Cause_ producing the light.
+
+[137] _Grammar of Assent_, p. 69.
+
+[138] _Familiar Lectures_, p. 458.
+
+[139] "On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':" _Life of C.
+Darwin_, ii. p. 187.
+
+[140] _Nineteenth Century_, No. 2. Reprinted in _Lectures and Essays_,
+p. 388 (2nd Edition).
+
+[141] _Studies in the Theory of Descent_, vol. ii. p. 710; _vid.
+Edinburgh Review_, October, 1902, _The Rise and Influence of Darwinism_.
+
+[142] _Ut sup._ p. 201.
+
+[143] _Sic._ The sense evidently requires either that the "not" should
+be deleted, or "prove" be substituted for "disprove" in the preceding
+line. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from which I
+quote, but likewise in the _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 307, where this
+passage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's _Natural
+History of Creation_, under the title of _The Genealogy of Animals_.
+
+[144] _Life and Letters_, ii. 195.
+
+[145] _Ibid._, p. 467.
+
+[146] _De Natura Deorum_, ii. 4.
+
+[147] _Principia, Schol. Gen._
+
+[148] _Unseen Universe_, p. 47.
+
+[149] _Burnett Lectures_, p. 327.
+
+[150] See report of his words emended by himself, _Nineteenth Century
+and After_, June, 1903.
+
+[151] Bradford, 1873.
+
+[152] Montreal, 1884.
+
+[153] _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 3rd Series, vol. v. p.
+138.
+
+[154] "Reception of 'Origin of Species,'" _ubi sup._ p. 199.
+
+[155] November 26, 1860.
+
+[156] May 22, 1860.
+
+[157] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[158] _The Scientific Basis of Morality_, by George Gore, LL.D., F.R.S.,
+p. 31.
+
+[159] May 22, 1860.
+
+[160] Bain, _De vi physica_, p. 76.
+
+[161] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 61.
+
+[162] Lord Grimthorpe, _op. cit._ 85.
+
+[163] Letter to the _Times_, June 2, 1903
+
+[164] The term _Monism_, invented by Wolf, originally bore a different
+meaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to signify
+equally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind, and the
+idealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor Haeckel, as
+will be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two names for one
+thing.
+
+[165] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_ (English translation),
+p. 60.
+
+[166] _Ibid._, p. 10.
+
+[167] _Ibid._, p. 3.
+
+[168] _Mind and Motion._
+
+[169] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.
+
+[170] _Ibid._, p. 74.
+
+[171] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 51.
+
+[172] _Presidential Address_, _Section A_, _British Association_,
+Norwich, 1868.
+
+[173] "Mr. Darwin's Critics." (_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 283.)
+
+[174] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 19.
+
+[175] To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is illustrated
+by Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting _Bird Watching_, where he
+casually observes, as a matter of course, that the "life-part" of a
+tom-tit is as important in the sum of things as Napoleon's (p. 248), and
+declares elsewhere, more formally (p. 335)--"Surely, a beautiful
+butterfly, that, for all time, charms--and raises by charming--some
+number of those who see it, does more good on this earth than any single
+man or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no 'foot-prints on the sands of
+time.' Homer, for instance, has left his _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and
+these have been, and still are, mighty in their effects. But let them
+once perish, and Homer will be caught up and overtaken by almost any
+bird or butterfly--even a brown one."
+
+[176] _First Principles._
+
+[177] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[178] As to the term "Chance" which he frequently used, Mr. Darwin wrote
+in one place (_Origin of Species_, Opening passage of c. v.): "I have
+hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and multiform
+with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with
+those in a state of nature--had been due to chance. This, of course, is
+a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
+ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." It is obvious,
+however, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we have
+heard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for it
+is absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of "Chance" quoted
+in the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind refuses to
+regard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know nothing, for
+that is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact, instinctively
+recognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if not due to
+purpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to the true and
+legitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed it.
+Occasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to
+defend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a
+factor.--_Vid. sup._, c. xii.
+
+[179] Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his system to
+_species_, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to the
+production of new _genera_, and even of divisions of the organic
+kingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus--apart from the most famous instance of
+all, treated by Darwin himself in his _Descent of Man_--it is now a
+cardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of
+life are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of
+development, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one
+identical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain
+that Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock,--and, still
+farther on, that at least all placental mammals--bats and whales,
+elephants and mice--trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.
+
+[180] _Origin of Species_, v.
+
+[181] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[182] _Ibid._, c. vi.
+
+[183] "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold
+all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now some
+small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel very
+uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I
+gaze at it, makes me sick." (_C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860._)
+
+[184] It will help to understand the nature of the task thus imposed
+upon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes on this
+subject (_Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 103):
+
+"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular
+shapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays
+of light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our
+eye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of
+proper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring
+all the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point
+without confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made
+machines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of
+them and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass
+melted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been
+built up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar
+and complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand,
+though we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they
+are persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again
+some of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of
+animals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a
+membrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of
+brush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of
+light; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be
+divided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be
+as long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish
+them; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a
+brush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of
+all these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in
+that organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living
+creatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet."
+
+[185] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[186] Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin supposed the
+workmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact and accurate
+than usually is the case,--there remains quite enough of architectural
+merit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to increase the
+mystery that the insects should thus appear to strive towards an ideal,
+which they frequently fail to satisfy.
+
+[187] _Ranunculus ficaria._ It is remarkable that in the season of 1904
+this plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in which
+such fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.
+
+[188] _Origin of Species_, c. xiv.
+
+[189] _Descent of Man_, Part I, c. i.
+
+[190] _Biological Lectures and Addresses_, p. 202.
+
+[191] _Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais_ (1870), p. 120.
+
+[192] _North British Review_, June, 1867. Professor Huxley likewise
+declared this criticism to be of "real and permanent value." (_Critiques
+and Addresses_, 252.)
+
+[193] _La vie des �tres anim�s_, p. 102.
+
+[194] Presidential Address Geologists' Association (_Proceedings_, vol.
+v. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in _Contemporary Review_, February, 1877,
+under the title "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[195] See APPENDIX A. p. 280a.
+
+[196] _Variation in Animals and Plants_, p. 343. By H. M. Verney
+(International Scientific Series, 88).
+
+[197] J. W. Barclay, _New Theory of Organic Evolution_, p. 90.
+
+[198] Huxley, _Lectures and Essays_ (Popular Edition), pp. 28, seq.
+
+[199] Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely
+discarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The
+wing of _Hesperornis_, for example, is now declared to be an instance of
+_degeneration_ from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be
+considered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the
+descendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has
+yet been discovered. (See Pycraft's _Story of Bird Life_, p. 190.)
+
+[200] _Philosophical Transactions Royal Society_, 1863, p. 36.
+
+[201] This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, _Final Causes_, 2nd
+English Edition, p. 245.
+
+[202] _Descent of Man_, ii. 156.
+
+[203] _Tablet_, May 26, 1888, p. 837.
+
+[204] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 297.
+
+[205] _Descent of Man_, _i._ p. 57.
+
+[206] In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the suggestion is
+put in form of a question: "May not some unusually wise ape-like animal
+...?"
+
+[207] _Origin of Species_, c. vi.
+
+[208] _Ibid._, c. viii.
+
+[209] It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only be
+mentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have no
+descendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of
+the whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their
+existence.
+
+[210] _Descent of Man_ (1st Edition), ii. 385.
+
+[211] _Ibid._, i. 107.
+
+[212] _Ibid._, ii. 386.
+
+[213] _Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais_, p. 151
+
+[214] _Ibid._, p. 167.
+
+[215] _La vie des �tres anim�s_, p. 161.
+
+[216] Saint-Hilaire.
+
+[217] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. p. 82.
+
+[218] _North British Review_, July, 1867, p. 316.
+
+[219] P. 313.
+
+[220] November 5, 1903, _Journal of Botany_, January, 1904, p. 32.
+
+[221] Dr. Hudson, see _Nature_, February 20, 1890, p. 375.
+
+[222] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[223] _Op. cit._ p. 59.
+
+[224] _History of Creation_, English Edition, ii. 353.
+
+[225] _The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's "Nat�rliche
+Sch�pfungs-Geschichte."_ The _Academy_, 1869. Reprinted in _Critiques
+and Addresses_, and _Darwiniana_ (Collected Works).
+
+[226] The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is unknown,
+was supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found, however, that
+its removal entails _myxoedema_, a condition closely allied to
+cretinism.
+
+[227] "Geological Contemporaneity." (_Lay Sermons_, p. 206.)
+
+[228] Mr. Mivart, _Types of Animal Life_, p. 113.
+
+[229] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 13.
+
+[230] Mr. Mivart, _Tablet_, April 21, 1888.
+
+[231] The Mexican _Axolotl_, the _Triton Alpestris_, and probably
+others.
+
+[232] _Nature_, March 24, 1892.
+
+[233] i.e. the Science of Causes.
+
+[234] _Dictionnaire encyclop�dique des sciences m�dicales._
+
+[235] Thus having described in detail a series of experiments as to the
+effects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larv� of various
+_hymenoptera_, M. Fabre writes:
+
+"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqu�s par
+Darwin." (_Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 330.)
+
+[236] _Journal of Linnean Society_, vol. xix.
+
+[237] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903, p. 218.
+
+[238] _Revue de Philosophie_, April 1, 1904.
+
+[239] _Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 317.
+
+[240] For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.
+
+[241] _Nature_, September 10, 1891.
+
+[242] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species._
+
+[243] _De opere sex dierum_, ii. 10, n. 12.
+
+[244] _Modern Idea of Evolution_, p. 97.
+
+[245] Darwin (_Origin of Species_, p. 274, 6th Edition) considers it
+"incredible" that the same identical species should originate twice even
+under the very same conditions. In the following passage, Haeckel
+affirms such unity of origin in respect of a most remarkable species of
+wide-reaching affinities.
+
+"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata,
+from the _Amphioxus_ upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia,
+reptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single
+vertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and
+highly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of
+processes or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a
+vertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the
+course of the earth's history." (Address to Munich meeting of German
+Association, vid. _Nature_, October 4, 1877.)
+
+[246] _Origin of Species_ (6th Edition), p. 265.
+
+[247] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii., 76.
+
+[248] _History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of Evolution_
+(1898).
+
+[249] Harebell.
+
+[250] According to the most recent system of classification, the
+Monopetal�, now re-christened _Sympetalae_, are ranked above the
+Polypetal�, the family of the _Compositae_ being highest of all.
+
+[251] _Proceedings_, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The substance of
+this address appeared as an article in the _Contemporary Review_,
+February, 1877, entitled, "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[252] See Appendix B. p. 284.
+
+[253] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_ (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.
+
+[254] These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are supposed by
+most naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear presently to
+have become extinct, no traces of them having been found in the chalk, a
+formation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor Marsh tells us
+on this subject (_Nature_, September 27, 1877, p. 471):
+
+"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence,
+either in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at
+essentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of
+Mammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens
+have been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and
+all are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in
+America, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at
+present only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the
+genus _Dromotherium_, supposed to be related to the insect-eating
+_Myrmecobius_, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe
+have yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet
+none of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of
+cretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world."
+
+[255] P. 118.
+
+[256] P. 105.
+
+[257] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. 34.
+
+[258] _Genesis of Species_, p. 129.
+
+[259] _Charles Darwin_, p. 185.
+
+[260] _Genesis of Species_, p. 130.
+
+[261] _Types of Animal Life_, 149.
+
+[262] _Genesis of Species_, p. 132.
+
+[263] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution" (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 251).
+
+[264] "Succession of Life on Earth." (_Half-hour Recreations_, 2nd
+Series, p. 329.)
+
+[265] _Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College, Manchester, p. 220, note.
+
+[266] See note, p. 238.
+
+[267] "Geological Contemporaneity," 1862. (_Lay Sermons_, p. 222.)
+
+[268] "Pal�ontology and Evolution," 1876. (_Critiques and Addresses_, p.
+182.)
+
+[269] P. 187.
+
+[270] P. 192.
+
+[271] _Genealogy of Animals._
+
+[272] _Natural History of Creation._
+
+[273] _Le Transformisme_, pp. 337-340.
+
+[274] _Lectures on Evolution_, New York, 1876. Cheap Edition, p. 43.
+
+[275] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species_, etc.
+
+[276] _Essays on Controverted Questions_, p. 450.
+
+[277] "Utebatur autem equo insigni, pedibus prope humanis, et in modum
+digitorum ungulis fissis; quem natum apud se, cum haruspices imperium
+orbis terrae significare domino pronuntiassent, magna cura aluit."
+(Suetonius, _Julius_, 61.)
+
+[278] The _radius_ and _ulna_ are the two bones of the forearm above the
+wrist; the _tibia_ and _fibula_ the corresponding bones of the leg above
+the ankle. In the horse, the _ulna_ and _fibula_ are almost, but not
+quite, lost.
+
+[279] Animals and plants are placed in different _species_ when the
+differences between them are only _relative_; in different _genera_,
+when such differences are _absolute_. Thus, for example, the size of
+teeth is considered relative; the number of teeth absolute.
+
+[280] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 3rd Series, vol. 43
+(1892), p. 351.
+
+[281] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, p. 119.
+
+[282] _Types of Animal Life_, 205.
+
+[283] Nicholson and Lydekker's _Manual of Pal�ontology_, ii. 1362.
+
+[284] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[285] _Lydekker_, p. 1361.
+
+[286] _Evolution of the Horse_, 12.
+
+[287] "Succession of Life on Earth" (_Recreations in Popular Science_,
+2nd Series, p. 339).
+
+[288] British Museum (_Nat. Hist._) _Guide to fossil mammals and birds_,
+p. 38.
+
+[289] _American Journal of Science and Art_, 3rd Series, vol. 43 (1892),
+p. 351.
+
+[290] _The Evolution of the Horse_, p. 16.
+
+[291] _Lydekker_, _ut sup._ p. 1363.
+
+[292] Sir W. Flower, _The Horse_, p. 74.
+
+[293] "It is a consequence of the theory of Natural Selection that
+identity of structure involves community of descent; a given result can
+only be arrived at through a given sequence of events; the same
+morphological goal cannot be reached by two independent paths." Milnes
+Marshall, _Biological Lectures_, 247.
+
+[294] _Origin of Species_, c. xi. "Geological Succession of Organic
+Beings."
+
+[295] _Tablet_, April 21, 1888, p. 637.
+
+[296] _Catalogue of Mammals_, etc., _ut sup._ p. 38.
+
+[297] _Chain of Life_, p. 222.
+
+[298] _Les Enchainements du Monde Animal_ ... Mammif�res Tertiaires.
+
+[299] _Chain of Life_, 227.
+
+[300] It is the "fingers" of the bat's "hand" which support the wing
+membrane. Hence the scientific name _Cheiroptera_.
+
+[301] E.g. Dinotherium giganteum and Elephas meridionalis. (Vid. Gaudry,
+_op. cit._ 169.)
+
+[302] Lecture at Royal Institution, January 2, 1904.
+
+[303] A remarkable instance of the need of caution is furnished by the
+history of the Dinotherium itself. From the teeth, first found, Cuvier
+set down the animal as a monster Tapir. Then, a whole skull being
+discovered, Herr Kaup of Darmstadt, commenting upon the danger of such a
+proceeding, himself classed the beast among the Edentata (Sloths, etc.),
+and afterwards among the Hippopotami. Buckland and Strauss thought it
+must have been an aquatic creature; Blainville and Pictet labelled it a
+Manatee, or sea-cow. (Vid. Gaudry, _op. cit._ 187-9.)
+
+[304] _Op. cit._ p. 191.
+
+[305] Milnes Marshall, _Lectures on Darwinian Theory_, p. 66.
+
+[306] See Appendix C. p. 285.
+
+[307] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, c. iv.
+
+[308] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution." (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 200.)
+
+[309] _History of Creation_, ii. 92, English Edition.
+
+[310] _Ibid._, p. 295.
+
+[311] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 76.
+
+[312] As an instance M. de Quatrefages cites Haeckel's own words, from
+his _Anthropogenie_. "The Vertebrate Ancestor No. 15, akin to the
+Salamanders, must have been a species of Saurian (Lizard). There remains
+to us no fossil relic of this animal; in no respect did he resemble any
+form actually existing. Nevertheless, comparative anatomy and ontogeny
+authorize us in affirming that he once existed. We will call this animal
+_Protamnion_."
+
+[313] _Ibid._, p. 122.
+
+[314] _Revue Scientifique_ (1886), p. 486.
+
+[315] _Ibid._ (1877), I. 1101.
+
+[316] _Origin of Species_, c. x.
+
+[317] _Genesis of Species_, p. 134.
+
+[318] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. vi.
+
+[319] _Op. cit._, p. 288.
+
+[320] _Life of Darwin_, ii. 193.
+
+[321] _Epistle_ I--to Pope.
+
+[322] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903.
+
+[323] _Order of Nature_, p. 239.
+
+[324] _Thoughts on Religion_, p. 123.
+
+[325] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1871.
+
+[326] _Syst�me Analytique des Connaissances positives de l'homme_
+(1830), pp. 8, 43.
+
+[327] _North American Slime Moulds_, Introduction, p. II.
+
+[328] Bloud's _Science et Religion_, No. 431, pp. 50, seq.
+
+[329] _Trait� de Microbiologie_, I., p. 253. Also the Magazine
+_Broteria_ (Lisbon), Vol. vi., 1907, Botany, p. 23.
+
+[330] See _Nature_, June 4, 1903, p. 113, in notice of a paper on the
+subject by Professor F. W. Oliver and Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S.
+
+[331] _Linnean Society's Proceedings_, May 3, 1906.
+
+[332] See the _Congress Report_, vol. iv.
+
+[333] _Transactions American Philosophical Society_ (N.S.), 18, 1896,
+pp. 119, 120.
+
+[334] _The Origin and Influence of the Thorough-bred Horse._ Cambridge,
+1905.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by 
+John Gerard
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 33859-8.txt or 33859-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/8/5/33859/
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/33859-8.zip b/33859-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af23c41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-8.zip
diff --git a/33859-h.zip b/33859-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..77182d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h.zip
diff --git a/33859-h/33859-h.htm b/33859-h/33859-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..58242b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/33859-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,10026 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
+  <head>
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+<title>
+  The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by John Gerard.
+</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+ p {margin-top:.75em;text-align:justify;margin-bottom:.75em;text-indent:2%;}
+
+.ast {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;letter-spacing:15px;}
+
+.c {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;}
+
+.cb {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;}
+
+.dedcat {margin:15% 20% 15% 20%;}
+
+.hang {text-indent:-2%;margin-left:2%;}
+
+.lg {font-size:large;}
+
+.nind {text-indent:0%;}
+
+.r {text-align:right;margin-right:5%;}
+
+ h4 {text-align:center;clear:both;}
+
+ h1,h3 {margin-top:15%;text-align:center;clear:both;}
+
+.spc {letter-spacing:5px;}
+
+.top5 {margin-top:5%;}
+
+.top15 {margin-top:15%;}
+
+ hr {width:15%;margin:2em auto 2em auto;clear:both;color:black;}
+
+ hr.full {width:100%;margin:5% auto 5% auto;border:4px double gray;}
+
+ table {margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;border:none;text-align:left;}
+
+td.chpt {padding-top:5%;text-align:center;}
+
+.bdlft {border-left:1px solid black;}
+
+.bdltbt {border-bottom:1px solid black;border-left:1px solid black;}
+
+.bdtt {border-left:1px solid black;border-bottom:1px solid black;border-top:1px solid black;}
+
+ body{margin-left:10%;margin-right:10%;background:#fdfdfd;color:black;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;font-size:medium;}
+
+a:link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;}
+
+  link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;}
+
+a:visited {background-color:#ffffff;color:purple;text-decoration:none;}
+
+a:hover {background-color:#ffffff;color:#FF0000;text-decoration:underline;}
+
+.smcap  {font-variant:small-caps;font-size:95%;}
+
+ img {border:none;}
+
+.blockquot{margin:8% auto 8% auto;}
+
+.caption  {font-weight:bold;font-size:small;}
+
+.figcenter   {margin:auto;text-align:center;}
+
+.footnotes  {border:dotted 3px gray;margin-top:15%;clear:both;}
+
+.footnote   {width:95%;margin:auto 3% 1% auto;font-size:0.9em;position:relative;}
+
+.label  {position:relative;left:-.5em;top:0;text-align:left;font-size:.8em;}
+
+.fnanchor   {vertical-align:30%;font-size:.8em;}
+
+.pagenumber  {font-style:normal;position:absolute;left:92%;font-size:75%;text-align:right;color:gray;background-color:#ffffff;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;text-indent:0em;}
+</style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+Project Gutenberg's The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by John Gerard
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer
+
+Author: John Gerard
+
+Release Date: October 15, 2010 [EBook #33859]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+<hr class="full" />
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 359px;">
+<img src="images/cover.jpg"
+id="coverpage" width="359" height="550" alt="bookcover" title="" />
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_i" id="page_i">{i}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top15">THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ii" id="page_ii">{ii}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="dedcat">
+<p>The Lord St. Alban would say to some philosophers&mdash;"Gentlemen, nature is
+a labyrinth, in which the very haste you move with, will make you lose
+your way."</p>
+
+<p class="r">
+<span class="smcap">Bacon</span>, <i>Apophthegms</i>.<br />
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_iii" id="page_iii">{iii}</a></span></p>
+
+<h1 class="spc">THE&nbsp; OLD&nbsp; RIDDLE<br />
+AND THE NEWEST<br />
+ANSWER</h1>
+
+<p class="cb top15"><small>BY</small><br /><br />
+JOHN GERARD, S.J., F.L.S.</p>
+
+<p class="cb top15"><i>FOURTH EDITION</i></p>
+
+<p class="cb top15">LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.<br />
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON,<br />
+NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA<br />
+<br />
+1907</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary=""
+style="border:3px double gray;padding:2%;margin-top:10%;">
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#PREFACE">Preface</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#PREFACE_TO_THE_SECOND_EDITION">Preface To The Second Edition</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#PREFACE_TO_THE_THIRD_EDITION">Preface To The Third Edition</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#CONTENTS">Contents</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#APPENDIX">Appendix</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#INDEX">Index</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#FOOTNOTES">Footnotes</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_iv" id="page_iv">{iv}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="c top15">
+ROEHAMPTON:<br />
+PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_v" id="page_v">{v}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE</h3>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HE</small> enemies of Science are not the philistines alone&mdash;if any still
+remain&mdash;who would muzzle or stifle her. More numerous and dangerous are
+those&mdash;professedly of her own household&mdash;who ascribe to her pretensions
+of which she herself knows nothing, and strive to make her responsible
+for a philosophy entirely beyond her scope. With this object efforts are
+assiduously made to popularize the idea that nothing in heaven or earth
+is beyond her ken, and that she has rendered all such beliefs impossible
+as alone can satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity. At the same time
+the very brilliance of her achievements is apt to dazzle our eyes,
+blinding them to the extremely narrow limits of the field in which she
+can operate, and making us rush to the conclusion that she has solved
+the riddle which from the beginning of time Nature has offered to every
+thinking mind,&mdash;or at least that what her search-light cannot illumine
+must for ever remain unknowable.</p>
+
+<p>How far such assumptions are rational, it is the object of the present
+enquiry to examine by means of the evidence furnished by Science herself
+in her own regard.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_vi" id="page_vi">{vi}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>I have to thank Mr. W. E. Darwin for permission to use the illustration
+of feathers of the Argus Pheasant from his illustrious father's <i>Descent
+of Man</i>, and for the loan of blocks for the purpose. Through the
+courtesy of Messrs. Macmillan I am allowed to copy a portion of the
+plate in the late Professor Huxley's <i>Lectures on Evolution</i>,
+illustrating his pedigree of the Horse. If I forbear to mention others
+who have kindly supplied me with information, it is only lest it might
+be supposed that they are anywise responsible for the use I have made of
+it. The design on the cover of the present volume I owe to my friend Mr.
+Paul Woodroffe.</p>
+
+<p class="r">J. G.</p>
+
+<p><i>March</i> 10, 1904.</p>
+
+<h3><a name="PREFACE_TO_THE_SECOND_EDITION" id="PREFACE_TO_THE_SECOND_EDITION"></a>PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION</h3>
+
+<p class="nind">I<small>N</small> this edition, which has been thoroughly revised throughout, a few
+corrections have had to be made, especially in the Index, and in one or
+two instances alterations or additions have appeared advisable for the
+sake of clearness or accuracy of expression. Nothing has, however, as
+yet been brought to the author's notice which affects any substantial
+point in what he has written.</p>
+
+<p><i>July</i> 28, 1904.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_vii" id="page_vii">{vii}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="PREFACE_TO_THE_THIRD_EDITION" id="PREFACE_TO_THE_THIRD_EDITION"></a>PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION</h3>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HIS</small> edition has again been thoroughly revised, and some new matter
+appended which bears on various points raised in the original volume,
+especially the establishment of the important group of the
+<i>Cycado-filices</i>, as affecting the succession of plant life on the
+earth, and recent evidence concerning the pedigree of the horse.</p>
+
+<p><i>December</i> 21, 1906.</p>
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_viii" id="page_viii">{viii}</a></span></p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ix" id="page_ix">{ix}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h3>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="contents"
+style="width:65%;">
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#I">CHAPTER I</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">To Begin at the Beginning</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Certainty that there was a Beginning of the World&mdash;What
+was there before?&mdash;The Great Problem, to be
+answered by Reason and Science</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><small>PAGES</small> <a href="#page_001">1-3</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#II">CHAPTER II</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Reason and Science</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Principles of Reasoning&mdash;Scope and method of Science</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_004">4-7</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#III">CHAPTER III</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Evolution</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Term variously used for a Process and a Principle. We
+commence with the latter</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_008">8-9</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#IV">CHAPTER IV</a><br />
+"<span class="smcap">The Law of Evolution</span>"</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Evolution as a Philosophy&mdash;Main features of the
+system</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_010">10-14</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#V">CHAPTER V</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">What is a "Law of Nature"?</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Erroneous use of the term frequent: its scientific use</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_015">15-19</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#VI">CHAPTER VI</a><br />
+"<span class="smcap">The Law of Substance</span>"</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>A combination of two other "Laws," viz.&mdash;The indestructibility
+of Matter, and the Conservation of
+Energy&mdash;But there is also Dissipation of Energy&mdash;Consequences
+inferred from this as to the Duration
+of the Universe</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_020">20-28</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#VII">CHAPTER VII</a><br /><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_x" id="page_x">{x}</a></span>
+"<span class="smcap">The Seven Enigmas</span>"</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>The "Law of Continuity"&mdash;Alleged breaches&mdash;Seven
+evolutionary stages deduced to be scientifically
+unexplained, or even inexplicable</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_029">29-34</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#VIII">CHAPTER VIII</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Matter and Motion</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Constitution and Properties of Matter inconsistent with
+Haeckel's evolutionary system&mdash;Also the Laws of
+Motion&mdash;Radium and its revelations</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_035">35-44</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#IX">CHAPTER IX</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">The Problem of Life</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Evolution here considered as a process&mdash;In its larger
+sense, postulates spontaneous generation&mdash;which,<br />
+however, Science disallows&mdash;Protoplasm and Crystallization</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_045">45-66</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#X">CHAPTER X</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Animal and Man</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Origin of simple sensation and consciousness even less
+explicable than that of life&mdash;Gulf between man
+and the lower animals&mdash;Language exclusively
+human&mdash;The significance of Free-will can be impugned
+only by the absurdity of denying its existence</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_067">67-85</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XI">CHAPTER XI</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">The Order of Nature</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>The order of the <i>Cosmos</i> requires a Cause&mdash;No cause
+known to us can produce such a result except Intelligence&mdash;Hence
+we infer Purpose or Design and
+are led to Theism&mdash;Scientific evidence as to this,<br />
+"the Grand Question"</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_086">86-109</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XII">CHAPTER XII</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Purpose and Chance</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>What "Chance" means&mdash;It is the sole alternative to
+Purpose or Design&mdash;Arguments against Purposive
+Creation&mdash;The Existence of Pain&mdash;The Mysteries
+of Generation </td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_110">110-125</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XIII">CHAPTER XIII</a><br /><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_xi" id="page_xi">{xi}</a></span>
+<span class="smcap">Monism</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>The Monistic Philosophy&mdash;Its utter lack of a scientific
+basis&mdash;Contradicted by the ideas of morality and
+truth&mdash;Not really adopted by Monists themselves </td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_126">126-139</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XIV">CHAPTER XIV</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Organic Evolution</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>"Evolution" now to be considered in its most restricted
+signification&mdash;Organic Evolution, or "Transformism,"<br />
+not identical with Darwinism&mdash;The
+nature of the questions before us</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_140">140-148</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XV">CHAPTER XV</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">Darwinism</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Though no essential part of our enquiry, Darwinism
+must be studied on account of importance ascribed
+to it&mdash;Baseless claims on its behalf&mdash;True character
+of the system&mdash;Natural Selection and its mode of
+action&mdash;Phenomena which seem to favour Darwinism&mdash;Difficulties
+on the other side&mdash;Limits of
+Variation&mdash;Specific stability&mdash;Adverse probabilities&mdash;Natural
+selection can produce nothing&mdash;Transitional
+developments useless or harmful&mdash;Artistic
+ornaments unexplained&mdash;Flaws in argument&mdash;Organic
+progress&mdash;Rudimentary Organs&mdash;Embryology&mdash;Scientific
+opinion as to Darwinism</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_149">149-203</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XVI">CHAPTER XVI</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">The Facts of Evolution</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Pal�ontology furnishes the only sound basis for argument&mdash;The
+nature of the evidence required&mdash;The
+history of Life as known to us is inconsistent
+with evolutionary theories&mdash;Haeckel's "ante-periods"&mdash;Conclusion
+to which facts point</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_204">204-238</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XVII">CHAPTER XVII</a><br /><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_xii" id="page_xii">{xii}</a></span>
+"<span class="smcap">Audi Alteram Partem</span>"</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Arguments on behalf of Evolution&mdash;The genealogy of
+the Horse&mdash;Haeckel's Pedigree of Man&mdash;Darwin's
+plea of imperfection of the geological record&mdash;No
+evolutionary process is yet demonstrated; Still less
+has anything been done to establish Evolution as a
+creative force</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_239">239-269</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#XVIII">CHAPTER XVIII</a><br />
+<span class="smcap">To Sum Up</span></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Reason leads to conclusions which physical science cannot
+reach&mdash;The recognition of a First Cause beyond the
+Sensible Universe an intellectual necessity&mdash;Knowledge
+of this cause attainable by reason&mdash;Conclusion</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_270">270-280</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td align="center" class="chpt" colspan="2"><a href="#APPENDIX">APPENDICES</a><br /></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>A. Recent Scientific Verdicts concerning Darwinism and Transformism</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_281">281</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>B. Development of Plant life&mdash;the <i>Cycadofilices</i> </td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_284">284</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>C. The Course of Evolution</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_285">285</a></td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>D. The pedigree of the Horse: further evidence</td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_286">286</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#INDEX">Index</a></span></td><td align="right" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_289">289</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_001" id="page_001">{1}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="I" id="I"></a>I</h3>
+
+<h4>TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HAT</small> the world as we know it had a beginning is a truth which there is
+no denying. Not only have philosophers always argued that it must be so:
+the researches of physical science assure us that it has been so in
+fact. Astronomy, says Professor Huxley,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> "leads us to contemplate
+phenomena the very nature of which demonstrates that they must have had
+a beginning." The hypothesis that phenomena of Nature similar to those
+exhibited by the present world have always existed, the same authority
+assures us,<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> "is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as we
+have, which is of so plain and so simple a character that it is
+impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it forces
+upon us." This conclusion, physicists tell us, is inevitable when we
+study the laws by which the operations of Nature are governed, and as
+Professor Balfour Stewart writes,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> we thus become "absolutely certain"
+that these operations cannot<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_002" id="page_002">{2}</a></span> have existed for ever, and that a time
+will come when they must cease. In like manner, a recent and competent
+witness to the conclusions of contemporary Science, lays down,<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> as one
+of the truths which her latest discoveries compel us to accept, that the
+world is not eternal, that the earth is cooling from a state of heat
+rendering life impossible, to one of physical exhaustion equally fatal
+to it. Accordingly "Life must have had a beginning and must come to an
+end,"&mdash;and our whole Solar System (he adds) must similarly have had a
+commencement, at a period not infinitely remote.</p>
+
+<p>But, if the world had a beginning, what was there before it began?
+Something there must have been, and something which had the power of
+producing it. Had there ever been nothing, there could never have been
+anything, for, <i>Ex nihilo nihil fit</i>. That nothing should turn into
+something is an idea which the mind refuses to entertain. Nor is the
+case any better even if we suppose that matter had no beginning, that it
+has existed for ever as we know it now, and that at first there was
+nothing else. For if so, whence have all these things arisen which,
+according to all observation and experiment, matter cannot produce, as,
+organic life, sensitive life, consciousness, reason, moral goodness? Had
+matter been always what it now is, and had there been no source beyond
+matter whence the power of producing all these things could be derived,
+they could never have been produced at all, or else they would<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_003" id="page_003">{3}</a></span> have
+come into being without a cause. It would be like a milestone growing
+into an apple-tree, or a mountain spontaneously giving birth to a mouse.</p>
+
+<p>We are therefore compelled by common-sense to ask when we consider
+Nature, What is the force or power at the back of her, which first set
+her going, and whence she draws the capability of performing the
+operations which we find her performing every day; that force or power
+which must be the ultimate origin of everything that is in the world?
+This is the great fundamental problem which the student of Nature has to
+face, and beside it all others fade into insignificance. It is with this
+that we are now engaged. We have to ask how our reason bids us answer
+it, and the first question which arises naturally is, What light is
+thrown on the subject by modern Science, of whose achievements we are
+all so justly proud?<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_004" id="page_004">{4}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="II" id="II"></a>II</h3>
+
+<h4>REASON AND SCIENCE</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">I<small>N</small> studying a question such as this, we must commence by being
+determined, on the one hand to accept nothing as true but what our
+reason warrants us in believing, and on the other hand to follow the
+guidance of reason as far as, rightly used, it will lead us. The
+principle formulated<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> by Professor Huxley, as the foundation-stone of
+what he termed "Agnosticism," is that which must needs be adopted, and
+as a matter of fact has ever been adopted, by rational men.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Positively&mdash;in matters of the intellect follow your reason as far
+as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
+negatively&mdash;in matters of the intellect do not pretend that
+conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.</p></div>
+
+<p>But to justify the confidence which we thus repose in it we must
+obviously be careful to use our reason aright, and not to attribute to
+it any conclusions which it does not really sanction. It is this right<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_005" id="page_005">{5}</a></span>
+use of reason that is specially claimed for modern "Science,"<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> which,
+as we are again assured by Professor Huxley, is only another name for
+sound reasoning&mdash;"<i>Science</i>," he declares,<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> "<i>is, I believe, nothing
+but trained and organized common-sense</i>.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> ... The man of science, in
+fact, simply uses with scrupulous<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_006" id="page_006">{6}</a></span> exactness, the methods which we all,
+habitually and at every moment, use carelessly."</p>
+
+<p>There can be no sort of question that so long as men of science really
+act thus, and confine themselves to the treatment of matters in regard
+of which they can claim special knowledge, common sense bids us listen
+to them with respect, and even with submission. But the same common
+sense requires that we should satisfy ourselves that they truly deserve
+the character assigned them, and pretend to no knowledge on the score of
+Science but what their scientific methods are competent to acquire. When
+they step beyond this their own proper domain, whatever weight may be
+given to their opinions upon other grounds, they cease to speak in the
+name of Science.</p>
+
+<p>What then, we must ask, is the province of Science, and what are her
+methods?</p>
+
+<p>"Science," always understanding by the term physical or experimental
+Science, deals with the universe so far as it is known to us through our
+senses. The universe known thus we call "Nature," and the whole stock in
+trade of Science is the examination and verification of natural
+phenomena, with such inferences therefrom as ascertained facts
+legitimately suggest. From careful and trustworthy observation she can
+learn what are called the "Laws of Nature," that is to say the manner in
+which the various elements and forces of the universe are found
+constantly to act, in given circumstances; she can, to some extent,
+discover the chain of causes<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_007" id="page_007">{7}</a></span> and effects, or more properly of
+conditions and consequences, through which natural operations are
+carried on. She can even construct hypotheses as to what she cannot
+directly observe, namely, the nature of substances and forces; and such
+hypotheses are justified in proportion as they are found to tally with
+facts. If constantly thus justified, they are styled theories, and come
+to be practically assumed as established truths. But it must ever be
+remembered that Science can take no step in advance which is not based
+on fact, and that when facts are not forthcoming for its support an
+hypothesis or a theory has no scientific value.</p>
+
+<p>Bearing this in mind, we will proceed to enquire what Science has to
+tell us regarding the origin of the world, and the manner in which it
+has come to be what it is.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_008" id="page_008">{8}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="III" id="III"></a>III</h3>
+
+<h4>"EVOLUTION"</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">W<small>E</small> are constantly assured that Science compels us to believe in
+"Evolution," and that in this doctrine is to be found the explanation of
+the universe whereof we are in quest. We must however in the first place
+make sure that we understand what "Evolution" means, and if we look into
+the question, it speedily appears that the term is very differently
+understood by those who use it.</p>
+
+<p>Some who style themselves "Evolutionists" mean only that, as a matter of
+established fact, the organic world, the world of life, whether animal
+or vegetable, has been brought to its present condition by <i>genetic</i>
+development of one species from another, in the natural course of
+descent and through the operation of natural laws; and that as we see
+plants and animals of the same kind propagated one from another at the
+present day, so in the course of long ages the lower and simpler forms
+of life have given birth to the higher and more complex.</p>
+
+<p>Others again do not limit this process to organic creatures, and believe
+that from first to last, the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_009" id="page_009">{9}</a></span> whole world, inorganic and organic alike,
+has resulted from the action of forces such as those with which Science
+deals; and that life has thus arisen in purely natural course out of
+non-living matter, the universe in its original condition having been
+constituted as a vast machine which was bound to produce all that has
+since arisen.</p>
+
+<p>In either of the above senses&mdash;of which the second obviously includes
+the first,&mdash;"Evolution" is understood as no more than a <i>process</i> which
+is said to have occurred. But there is a more extreme school which takes
+"Evolution" for much more, namely for a power, principle, or "law,"
+which both governs and accounts for everything, and requires no further
+cause beyond itself.</p>
+
+<p>If this paramount "Law of Evolution" can be established, there is
+clearly an end of our enquiry, for here is the ultimate explanation of
+everything which we are seeking. But what has Science to say concerning
+it?<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_010" id="page_010">{10}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="IV" id="IV"></a>IV</h3>
+
+<h4>"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HAT</small> there is a self-existing and self-sufficing "Law of Evolution" to
+which everything in the world must be ascribed, is the doctrine of those
+Evolutionists who are most active in propagating their creed and who
+most loudly proclaim that it alone is scientific. The great leader and
+prophet of this school, Professor Ernst Haeckel, assures us<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> that he
+gives expression,</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">to that rational view of the world which is being forced upon us
+with such logical rigour by the modern advancements in our
+knowledge of nature as a unity, a view in reality held by almost
+all unprejudiced and thinking men of science, although but few have
+the courage (or the need) to declare it openly.</p></div>
+
+<p>The plain and rational conclusion thus exhibited is, he tells us,<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
+the special glory of modern research.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is true [he writes] that there were philosophers who<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_011" id="page_011">{11}</a></span> spoke of
+the evolution of things a thousand years ago; but the recognition
+that such a law dominates the entire universe, and that the world
+is nothing else than an eternal "evolution of substance," is a
+fruit of the nineteenth century.</p></div>
+
+<p>So far as concerns the world which we actually inhabit, its first
+beginning, we must, he tells us, suppose<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> to have been a vast nebula
+of infinitely attenuated and light material, rotating upon its own
+axis.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Given this first beginning of the cosmogonic movement, it is easy,
+on mathematical principles, to deduce and mathematically establish
+the further phenomena of the foundation of the cosmic bodies, the
+separation of the planets, and so forth.</p></div>
+
+<p>Nor are we to suppose that the beginning of this particular process was
+in any true sense a beginning at all. Evolutionary philosophy such as
+Professor Haeckel's, necessarily teaches that beginnings and endings
+succeed one another everlastingly, one world-system arising phoenix-like
+from the ashes of another.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The nebular hypothesis above described has recently [we are
+told]<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> been strongly confirmed and enlarged by the theory that
+this cosmogonic process did not simply<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_012" id="page_012">{12}</a></span> take place once, but is
+periodically repeated. While new cosmic bodies arise and develop,
+out of rotating masses of nebula in some parts of the universe, in
+other parts old, extinct, frigid suns come into collision, and are
+once more reduced by the heat generated to the condition of nebul�.</p></div>
+
+<p>It appears, in fact, to be assumed that this cyclic process has been
+actually demonstrated, for we are told<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> that astronomy reveals, in
+the endless depths of space, "Millions of circling spheres, larger than
+our earth, and, like it, in an eternal rhythm of life and death."</p>
+
+<p>Moreover, "life" is here to be understood literally, for it is a
+cardinal article of such evolutionary belief that equally with the
+foundation of cosmic bodies and the separation of planets, the
+production of organic life, of plants and animals, has been wrought by
+forces which the material universe contains within itself,<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> and
+accordingly,<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We now definitely know that the organic world on our earth has been
+continuously developed "in accordance with eternal iron laws." ...
+An unbroken series of natural events, following an orderly course
+of evolution according to fixed laws, now leads the reflecting
+human spirit through long aeons from a primeval chaos to the
+present order of the cosmos.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_013" id="page_013">{13}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Finally, at the back of all these processes, we are to recognize the one
+ultimate reality, the universe itself, which originates and undergoes
+all these evolutions. In its regard Professor Haeckel tells us<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> that,</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The universe, or cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. Its
+substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy) fills
+infinite space and is in eternal motion. This motion runs on
+through infinite time as an unbroken development, with a periodic
+change from life to death, from evolution to devolution....</p></div>
+
+<p>And again:<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The two fundamental forms of substances, ponderable matter and
+ether, are not dead and moved only by extrinsic force, but they are
+endowed also with sensation and will (though naturally of the
+lowest grade); they experience an inclination for condensation, a
+dislike of strain; they strive after the one and struggle against
+the other.</p></div>
+
+<p>Moreover,</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Movement<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> is as innate and original a property of substances as
+is sensation.</p></div>
+
+<p>Such is the raw material whose metamorphoses produce, or rather
+constitute, all possible worlds, while paramount over every thing
+dominates the "Law of Substance," under which title Professor Haeckel
+unites the scientific principles of the indestructibility<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_014" id="page_014">{14}</a></span> of matter,
+and the conservation of energy. Thus is the conclusion reached,<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Towering above all the achievements and discoveries of the century
+we have the great comprehensive "law of substance," the fundamental
+law of the constancy of matter and force. The fact that substance
+is everywhere subject to eternal movement and transformation gives
+it the character also of the universal law of evolution. As this
+supreme law has been firmly established and all others are
+subordinate to it, we arrive at a conviction of the universal unity
+of nature and the eternal validity of its laws.</p></div>
+
+<p>Accordingly we are to conclude with Goethe that all proceeds by iron law
+to the fulfilling of inevitable destiny; or as an ardent disciple
+proclaims, who undertakes to expound the new creed to the people,<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We rest in sure and certain hope that no force and no combination
+of forces can stop the process of Evolution, which from a speck of
+jelly has developed such living forms as Charles Darwin and Herbert
+Spencer, and which has produced the beauty of the earth and the
+heavens from formless ether.</p></div>
+
+<p>This outline of the Evolutionary system in its widest and fullest sense
+will enable us to judge upon what grounds it can claim the sanction of
+Science. Various points here present themselves for consideration, which
+demand separate treatment.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_015" id="page_015">{15}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="V" id="V"></a>V</h3>
+
+<h4>WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">A<small>S</small> we have seen, the doctrine of Evolution is presented by its advocates
+as being based upon the existence of a "Law of Evolution," or "Law of
+Substance," which both brings about evolutionary processes, and
+certifies us of their occurrence, so that we may appeal to it as an
+authority for our belief in the facts of evolution themselves. Thus as
+Professor Milnes Marshall told the British Association,<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The doctrine of descent, or of evolution, teaches us that as
+individual animals arise, not spontaneously, but by direct descent
+from pre-existing animals, so also is it with species, with
+families, and with larger groups of animals, and so also has it
+been for all time.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is not said, be it observed, that the establishment of such facts
+teaches us the doctrine of evolution, but that the doctrine assures us
+of the facts; and the utterances constantly met with, of which the above
+is a fair sample, have no signification<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_016" id="page_016">{16}</a></span> if they do not mean this. In
+the same way Professor Haeckel declares<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> that his fundamental cosmic
+law "establishes" the eternal persistence of matter and force, and their
+unvarying constancy throughout the entire universe, becoming thus "the
+pole-star that guides our Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth to a
+solution of the world problem," and the key to this supreme problem, he
+further tells us,<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> is found in one magic word&mdash;Evolution.</p>
+
+<p>It would certainly appear from all this, that by "Evolution" we are to
+understand some sort of entity at the back of the world, with power at
+its disposal capable of effecting all its operations,&mdash;something in fact
+remarkably like the First Cause of which we are in search,&mdash;and that by
+its "Laws" are signified some definite forces, the practical action of
+which has been ascertained by us, so that we can foretell the course of
+events under them, as we can that of the planets or the tides under the
+influence of gravitation.</p>
+
+<p>But is it scientific, or even intelligible, to use words thus, and to
+assign any such significance to such terms as "Law of Evolution," "Law
+of Substance," or any other "Law of Nature"? We are repeatedly warned to
+the contrary by so high an authority as Professor Huxley. Once, for
+instance, he discovered in a sermon of Canon Liddon's this "fallacious
+employment of the name<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_017" id="page_017">{17}</a></span> of a scientific conception," for which it was
+however added, the preacher "could find only too many scientific
+precedents."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> This fallacious use of terms, which nowise differs from
+that under consideration, Professor Huxley thus denounces:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is the use of the word "law" as if it denoted a thing&mdash;as if a
+"law of nature," as science understands it, were a being endowed
+with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by
+that law are brought about.... All I wish to remark is that such a
+conception of the nature of "laws" has nothing to do with modern
+science.... A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the
+product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
+under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind
+than colour has. The law of gravitation is a statement of the
+manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to
+move, do, in fact, move towards one another.... The tenacity of the
+wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of
+being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which
+we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our
+anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting
+psychological fact: and would be unintelligible if the tendency of
+the human mind towards realism were less strong.</p></div>
+
+<p>A law, accordingly, "is not a cause but a fact,"<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> and we must learn
+laws from facts, not facts from<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_018" id="page_018">{18}</a></span> laws. It is indeed evident on a
+moment's thought, that to speak of the Law of Evolution as causing
+things to be evolved, is like saying that the law of growth makes things
+grow. Till we know what happens, there is nothing of which Science can
+take account.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>True scientific teaching, I cannot too often repeat [says Professor
+Tait]<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> requires that the facts, and their <i>necessary</i>
+consequences alone, should be stated, as simply as possible.</p></div>
+
+<p>In like manner Professor Huxley,<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> undertaking to vindicate full
+scientific value for his own favourite Biology, does so by pointing out
+that biological methods are similar to those of every other branch of
+Science, since they begin with the observation of facts, and from this
+proceed to various applications of the knowledge so acquired. And
+Professor Haeckel himself tells us regarding his own mode of
+procedure:<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The means and methods we have chosen for attaining the solution of
+the great enigma do not differ, on the whole, from those of all
+purely scientific investigation: firstly, experience; secondly,
+inference.</p></div>
+
+<p>Therefore, although the phrases we have already heard from him, are
+found when scrutinized to<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_019" id="page_019">{19}</a></span> be only phrases, which explain nothing, it
+may be supposed that he elsewhere produces such proofs of his doctrine
+as will place it on a scientific basis. For these we will now seek.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_020" id="page_020">{20}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="VI" id="VI"></a>VI</h3>
+
+<h4>"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">W<small>E</small> have just been told by Professor Haeckel, that the means and methods
+which he has chosen for the establishment of his philosophy are, on the
+whole, identical with those employed in all purely scientific
+investigation, namely, first experience, and secondly inference.</p>
+
+<p>But here a grave difficulty at once presents itself. How, either by
+experience or by inference, can we learn anything about the
+commencements of the universe, as to which we have heard so much? How
+the first bodies, whether organic or inorganic, actually arose, neither
+philosophy nor science can definitely say, for the latter was not there
+to see, and the former has no facts on which to argue.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> But if
+neither by observation, nor by clear inference, can the account that has
+been given be substantiated, that account cannot pretend to be
+scientific, for it rests not upon knowledge but upon speculation,&mdash;and
+as Professor Tait warns us,<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_021" id="page_021">{21}</a></span> "That of which there is no knowledge is
+not yet part of Science."</p>
+
+<p>This plain consideration seems to account for a fact which is
+undoubtedly highly significant. Professor Huxley had certainly no
+prejudices against evolutionary systems, could they but be
+satisfactorily established. He knew all that Professor Haeckel has urged
+on behalf of his own theory, and showed how much he was in sympathy with
+it by naming after his friend the ill-starred <i>Bathybius Haeckelii</i>, the
+deep-sea slime which was at first supposed to bridge the gulf between
+the organic and the inorganic worlds, and to be living stuff in process
+of spontaneous manufacture. Nothing, in fact, as he himself admitted, in
+his controversy with Dr. Bastian, could have suited him better than a
+demonstration that Nature possesses all the powers necessary for her own
+processes, and that the explanation of all is within the scope of
+Science. But, at the same time, he reverenced scientific truth beyond
+anything else, and he was keenly sensible of the danger attending the
+use of hypothetical explanations, leading to conclusions which cannot be
+experimentally tested, which danger he carefully shunned.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>
+Accordingly, not only did he never lend his countenance to what
+Professor Haeckel represents as the inevitable conclusions of Science,
+but he even plainly intimated that those who<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_022" id="page_022">{22}</a></span> advanced such views were
+going much farther than Science warrants. The doctrine of Evolution, he
+declared,<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> is not only attacked on false grounds by its enemies, but
+is made by some of its friends to cover so much which is disputable, as
+to force him in self-defence to make his own position clear in its
+regard. And the first point of his explanation is to repudiate the idea
+that we have any such knowledge as Professor Haeckel assumes. "I have
+nothing to say," he writes, "to any 'Philosophy of Evolution.'"</p>
+
+<p>Being thus necessarily destitute of support either directly from
+observation or by inference from observed facts, it would seem that only
+in one way can Professor Haeckel's system of cosmogony, or
+world-production, obtain any support from Science. If amongst the
+operations now in progress in the universe, is to be found evidence of
+an exhaustless and self-renewing energy, a mainspring capable of keeping
+the machine going everlastingly, then undoubtedly there will be an
+explanation forthcoming, which, whatever difficulties may still remain
+on other grounds, will at least furnish a complete mechanical account of
+things within the ken of Science. May we not suppose that this is what
+is claimed as being supplied by the "Law of Substance," which is
+represented as the cornerstone of the whole edifice, the supreme triumph
+of scientific discovery, and, in fine, "the universal<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_023" id="page_023">{23}</a></span> law of
+evolution"? Let us see how far such a notion can be styled scientific.</p>
+
+<p>As has been shown, a "Law" is nothing but a statement that a certain
+kind of fact is found to occur in certain circumstances. Professor
+Haeckel has told us that the "Law of Substance" is a blend of two such
+statements, namely, "the Law of the persistency or indestructibility of
+matter," which signifies that in no instance within our knowledge is any
+particle of matter destroyed, and "the Law of the persistence of force,
+or conservation of energy," which signifies that the sum of force, at
+work in the world, and producing all phenomena, is similarly found to be
+unalterable.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p>
+
+<p>It must here first be observed that the term "Conservation of Energy,"
+is more correct and intelligible than "Conservation of Force"; by
+"Energy" being understood the power of doing "work," that is to say, of
+overcoming resistance.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>
+
+<p>It is in this form alone that Force becomes subject to observation and
+can be measured by Science, and the Law of Conservation which
+observation<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_024" id="page_024">{24}</a></span> reveals is thus stated: The sum of all the various energies
+in the universe is a constant quantity, which can be neither increased
+nor diminished, though it may be changed from one form to another;<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>
+such forms being motion, heat, chemical action, electricity, magnetism.</p>
+
+<p>But another point is of far greater importance. The mode in which
+Professor Haeckel states this fundamental Law is altogether deceptive.
+He tells his readers only half the truth, and when the other half is
+told, not only is his whole doctrine found to receive no support from
+the Laws of Energy, but it is these very Laws which appear most
+incompatible with it.</p>
+
+<p>For, along with the Law of the Conservation, there is another, of the
+Dissipation of Energy. It is perfectly true, as Professor Haeckel often
+repeats, that the sum of Energy existing in the universe remains ever
+the same: but it is no less certain, as he unfortunately fails to remind
+his readers, that the stock of Energy <i>available for the work of the
+universe</i> is growing less every day. Though none is ever destroyed, much
+is constantly <i>lost</i>, being dissipated, or radiated into space, in the
+form of heat which can never be recaptured or translated into any form
+which can be of any practical avail. "It is lost for ever as far as we
+are concerned."<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>
+
+<p>From what we have heard concerning the Law of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_025" id="page_025">{25}</a></span> Substance it might
+naturally be supposed that it certified us of the continued existence of
+the power required to carry on the operations of Nature, and that,
+accordingly, reason bids us to suppose these operations to be
+everlasting. But this neglected element of the reckoning, or <i>Entropy</i>
+as it is styled, leads scientific men to an entirely different estimate.
+Thus Professor Balfour Stewart writes:<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Although, therefore, in a strictly mechanical sense, there is a
+conservation of energy, yet, as regards usefulness or fitness for
+living beings, the energy of the universe is in process of
+deterioration. Universally diffused heat forms what we may call the
+great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger year
+by year.</p>
+
+<p>We have [he continues] regarded the universe, not as a collection
+of matter, but rather as an energetic agent&mdash;in fact, as a lamp.
+Now it has been well pointed out by Thomson,<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> that looked at in
+this light, the universe is a system that had a beginning and must
+have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we
+could view the universe as a candle not lit, then it is perhaps
+conceivable to regard it as having been always in existence; but if
+we regard it rather as a candle that has been lit, we become
+absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity,
+and that a time will come when it will cease to burn. We are led to
+look to a beginning in which the particles of matter were in a
+diffuse chaotic state, but endowed with the power of gravitation,
+and we are led to look to an<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_026" id="page_026">{26}</a></span> end in which the whole universe will
+be one equally heated inert mass, from which everything like life
+or motion or beauty will have utterly gone away.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is doubtless true that attempts have been made to show that this
+conclusion is not final, and that there may be resources whereby Nature
+is able to recoup herself, and to draw upon some bank unknown to us for
+her missing store. As we have seen, Professor Haeckel simply takes for
+granted that some such means of recuperation exist and operate, and he
+is not wholly without countenance from others. Thus, no less an
+authority than Sir William Crookes addressing the Chemical Society as
+its president, thus expressed himself:<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If we may hazard any conjectures ... we may I think premise that
+the heat radiations propagated outwards, ... by some process of
+nature unknown to us, are transformed at the confines of the
+universe into the primary&mdash;the essential&mdash;motion of chemical atoms,
+which the instant they are formed, gravitate inwards, and thus
+restore to the universe the energy which would be lost to it
+through radiant heat. Hence Sir William Thomson's startling
+prediction falls to the ground.</p></div>
+
+<p>But it need not be pointed out that if an advocate so eminent as Sir
+William Crookes is reduced to pleas like this on its behalf, the case
+for Renovation of Energy must be singularly destitute of anything
+resembling scientific support. Suppositions which<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_027" id="page_027">{27}</a></span> are avowedly hazarded
+as conjectures, and which must appeal to processes of Nature of which we
+know nothing, whatever authorship they may boast, have nothing to do
+with Science, and possess no sort of value for our purpose.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> It must
+of course be allowed that we may still be utterly in the dark as to the
+whole of this question, and that further discoveries may one day
+completely upset all our present notions. But we are concerned with the
+evidence which Science has now before her, and with the assertion so
+confidently advanced that this makes the Law of ceaseless Evolution an
+indisputable truth. We find, on the contrary, that this Law runs
+directly counter to the facts as they are at present known to us, and to
+the conclusions drawn from them by the most authoritative
+representatives of science.</p>
+
+<p>Nor is it only our own globe and solar system that appear to be thus
+bound towards an inevitable doom. The eternal rhythm of life and death,
+of which we have been told as pervading the endless depths<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_028" id="page_028">{28}</a></span> of space,
+has no better title to scientific sanction. Like the minor province
+which we inhabit, the whole universe, we are assured,&mdash;so far as we have
+means of calculating,&mdash;must ultimately arrive at a condition of eternal
+stagnation,&mdash;its component parts being drawn close together by their
+mutual attractions,&mdash;so that motion ceases; while the heat replacing it
+being equally diffused, becomes as incapable of doing work as water
+between two pools on the same level is of turning a mill. As the writer
+lately quoted sums up the matter:<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Slow as the process of condensation is, it is not endless. In time
+all the meteoric dust will be collected into stars or planets; and
+in time the law of dissipation of energy will bring all these
+bodies to a uniform temperature. So at last the movements due to
+the original unequal distribution of matter will cease, and the
+life of the universe will come to an end. We know of no process of
+rejuvenescence, by means of which dissipation of energy and the
+force of gravitation might be counteracted. Several attempts have
+been made to refute the theory of the dissipation of energy, but
+all have failed.</p></div>
+
+<p>This, however, is but the first of many difficulties which must be
+disposed of ere the account of the world's genesis which we are
+considering can pretend to our acceptance on the ground that reason and
+science proclaim its truth.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_029" id="page_029">{29}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="VII" id="VII"></a>VII</h3>
+
+<h4>"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HE</small> doctrine that the universe is an automatic machine,&mdash;self-originated
+and self-sustained&mdash;undoubtedly rests upon a principle formally
+recognized by some evolutionists, as the "Law of Continuity," and taken
+for granted by many who do not put it into words. This principle
+is,&mdash;that everything must always have happened according to the same
+laws of Nature which operate now; that there can never have been a
+"miracle," understanding by this term whatever is beyond the scope of
+natural forces; and that, accordingly, the whole of the world's
+history,&mdash;one stage as much as another,&mdash;falls within the province of
+Science. By no one has this position been more clearly stated than by
+the late Professor Romanes.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>All minds [he tells us]<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> with any instincts of science in their
+composition have grown to distrust, on merely antecedent grounds,
+any explanation which embodies a miraculous element. Such minds
+have grown to regard<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_030" id="page_030">{30}</a></span> all these explanations as mere expressions of
+our own ignorance of natural causation; or, in other words, they
+have come to regard it as an <i>� priori</i> truth that nature is always
+uniform in respect of method or causation; that the reign of law is
+universal; the principle of continuity ubiquitous.</p></div>
+
+<p>He goes on to declare that "The fact of evolution&mdash;or, which is the same
+thing, the fact of continuity in natural causation&mdash;has now been
+undoubtedly proved in many departments of nature," and that, in
+particular, "throughout the range of inorganic nature" it is "a
+demonstrated fact."</p>
+
+<p>If this be so, it must necessarily follow that the Laws of Nature, as
+Science finds them operating, sufficiently explain not only all that
+happens in our present world, but also all that must have happened while
+this world was being produced. According to what has already been said,
+by "The Law of Continuity" no more can be signified than that Continuity
+is a fact, that the world has actually come to be what it is through the
+continual operation of just the same natural forces as we find at work
+to-day. That things <i>did</i> so happen we have not and cannot have, direct
+evidence; for no witness was there to report. We can but draw inferences
+from the present to the past, and argue that what Nature does to-day,
+she must have been capable of doing yesterday and the day before. Only
+thus can continuity of natural laws possibly be established. It would
+obviously be vain to<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_031" id="page_031">{31}</a></span> argue that we must suppose no other forces ever to
+have acted than those we can observe, because, for all we know, other
+conditions may so have altered as to make their results altogether
+different from any of which we have experience.</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise manifest that if we are to speak of demonstrated facts,
+and of conclusions placed beyond rational possibility of doubt, proofs
+must be forthcoming sufficient to compel scientific assent.</p>
+
+<p>And here lies the difficulty. Very much must unquestionably have
+happened in the course of the world's making for which the Laws of
+Nature as we find them now acting cannot account, and which, therefore,
+Science cannot attempt to explain. So we are assured by eminent
+scientific men,&mdash;men, too, who desire nothing more than to find an
+explanation, but are driven, in search of one, as we have already seen
+Sir W. Crookes, to plead the limitation of our knowledge, and that there
+may be capabilities in Nature of which we are ignorant. But it remains
+always true, that what we do not know is not yet part of Science, and
+that if our scientific information, so far as it goes, is adverse to the
+Law of Continuity, it is quite unscientific to bring arguments for the
+law not from our knowledge, but from our lack of it. Still more
+unscientific is it to proclaim that Science has pronounced judgment in a
+sense contrary to that of all the evidence hitherto presented to her.</p>
+
+<p>Amongst the men of Science who testify as above, we may begin with Herr
+Du Bois-Reymond, an<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_032" id="page_032">{32}</a></span> avowed Evolutionist and Materialist, whom Professor
+Haeckel styles, "the all-powerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin
+Academy of Sciences."<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> He can be suspected of no prejudices which
+would prevent him from accepting Professor Haeckel's cosmogony, if only
+he found the evidence satisfactory. Far from this, however, he
+declares,<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> that the history of the universe confronts us with no less
+than seven problems, for which Science has no solution to offer, and
+some of which he holds to be for ever insoluble. These he styles
+"Enigmas," and they are:</p>
+
+<p>(1) The nature of Matter and of Force.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The origin of Motion.</p>
+
+<p>(3) The origin of Life.</p>
+
+<p>(4) The apparently designed order of Nature.</p>
+
+<p>(5) The origin of sensation and consciousness.</p>
+
+<p>(6) The origin of rational thought and speech.</p>
+
+<p>(7) Free-will.</p>
+
+<p>The first, second, and fifth of these are in the opinion of Du
+Bois-Reymond "transcendental," or beyond possibility of solution. The
+others, in his judgment, have certainly not yet been solved, but
+<i>perhaps</i> may be solved some day. As to the last, he much doubts whether
+it should not also be classed as "transcendental."</p>
+
+<p class="top5">It thus appears that in the judgment of a competent witness, and one
+no-wise biassed by preconception<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_033" id="page_033">{33}</a></span> or prejudice, so far from it being
+true that Professor Haeckel's story of the universe is imperiously
+imposed on us by the results of Science, not one but several great gulfs
+in the course of that history must have been bridged over somehow, which
+Science confesses she cannot bridge, so far as her present knowledge
+goes, that is to say, so far as she is Science at all.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Haeckel, it is true, loudly pronounces Du Bois-Reymond's
+declaration to be mere "dogmatism"<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> of a "shallow and illogical
+character," and he undertakes to show that with the help of his own
+philosophy the enigmas cease to be enigmatical.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>In my opinion [he writes] the three transcendental problems (1, 2
+and 5) are settled by our conception of substance; the three which
+he [Du Bois-Reymond] considers difficult, though soluble<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> (3, 4
+and 6) are decisively answered by our modern theory of evolution;
+the seventh and last, the freedom of the will, is not an object for
+critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+on an illusion, and has no real existence.</p></div>
+
+<p>How far such a mode of rebuking dogmatism appears convincing, must of
+course depend on what the reader understands by an argument. Some points
+already considered may help us to a right estimate of proofs which are
+based upon "Our<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_034" id="page_034">{34}</a></span> conception of substance," or "Our modern theory of
+evolution," and we shall presently inspect more closely the nature of
+the difficulties which we are invited so summarily to dismiss.
+Meanwhile, even though not final or conclusive, the testimony of such a
+man as Du Bois-Reymond serves at least to prove that it is possible to
+be thoroughly familiar with Science and her teaching, and yet to believe
+that as yet she knows nothing at all concerning questions which, as we
+have been assured, she has conclusively answered. And, as we shall
+presently see, if Professor Haeckel's account of things be the true one,
+there are many more scientific men of the first rank who are equally in
+the dark.</p>
+
+<p>In a word, while according to Professor Haeckel there is in the universe
+but one Riddle, which he tells us he has solved,&mdash;in the opinion of
+another who is certainly no less entitled to speak in the name of
+Science, there yet remain seven to which no answer has yet been given,
+and to three, at least, of which none will ever be found.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_035" id="page_035">{35}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="VIII" id="VIII"></a>VIII</h3>
+
+<h4>MATTER AND MOTION</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">I<small>N</small> the forefront of the problems which have been pronounced to be not
+only unsolved but insoluble, are the nature and origin of the ultimate
+factors arrived at by Science in her study of the constitution of the
+universe,&mdash;Matter, Force, and Motion.</p>
+
+<p>With the first and last of these alone need we at present concern
+ourselves, for "Force," as Science knows it, is always associated with
+Matter, and signifies no more in her terminology than that which
+produces, or tends to produce Motion. On the other hand, we are
+told,<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> that "The contents of the material universe may be expressed
+in terms of Matter and Motion."</p>
+
+<p>By "Matter" is understood "Sensible Substance," the stuff composing all
+of which our senses tell us, and which forms the object of Scientific
+investigation. What do we know concerning this raw material whereof
+worlds are made?</p>
+
+<p>As we have seen, Professor Haeckel and his school are ready to tell us.
+Matter, we are assured,<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> is self-existent<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_036" id="page_036">{36}</a></span> and imperishable, "it has
+no beginning and no end; it is eternity." Together with Ether, it
+occupies infinite and boundless space. It is in ceaseless motion; and
+its interminable modifications produce everything that ever was or ever
+will be. Movement<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> is one of the "innate and original properties" of
+Matter. So are Sensation and Will,<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> but these, we are warned,<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> are
+"unconscious."</p>
+
+<p>Obviously, however, it is not enough that these things should be said,
+they require likewise to be proved; and the question must immediately
+suggest itself, Whence is proof to come? Not, by any possibility, from
+observation and experiment. For who can speak, of his own knowledge, to
+eternity or infinity? The only conceivable supposition is that Science
+has so thoroughly mastered the nature and properties of Matter here and
+now, as to be furnished with evidence unmistakably pointing to the above
+conclusions. Thus alone can she be quoted on their behalf; and it must
+always be remembered that the philosophy which we are examining is
+nothing if not scientific.</p>
+
+<p>But, in the first place, is it quite clear of what our philosophers are
+speaking? They use the term "Matter" as though it represented some one
+definite thing: but this is very far from being the case.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_037" id="page_037">{37}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We must remember [says Lord Grimthorpe]<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> that matter is not an
+unit, as a creator is, and that talking of it so is merely a
+rhetorical artifice when used in philosophical inquiries.... Matter
+is nothing but the sum of all the ultimate particles or atoms
+contained in the universe, or in any particular mass that we are
+dealing with.... A very large proportion of the atoms of the
+universe have never been within millions and billions of miles of
+each other.</p></div>
+
+<p>Therefore, he goes on to urge, the doctrine of the self-existence of
+Matter, must mean that each several atom is self-existent, or "every
+atom its own god." How comes it then that they all obey the same "Laws"?
+How have their various provinces been allotted? Above all, how are they
+not all the same, but&mdash;so far as we know&mdash;divided into classes widely
+different from one another? For, according to our present
+knowledge,&mdash;and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves that upon this
+alone can any sound conclusion be based,&mdash;there are, in round numbers,
+some seventy different species of atoms, whose diverse qualities are
+absolutely necessary for the production of the world. Had all atoms been
+of one kind, we could have had none even of what used to be called the
+Four Elements,&mdash;neither Earth, Air, Fire, nor Water.</p>
+
+<p>But,&mdash;apart from this,&mdash;What is known concerning this same "Matter"? Has
+Science so thoroughly fathomed its constitution as to be able<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_038" id="page_038">{38}</a></span> to
+declare that it possesses all the properties we have heard assigned to
+it,&mdash;Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may
+be,&mdash;locomotive power,&mdash;eternity,&mdash;and, in its collective capacity,
+immensity?</p>
+
+<p>So far from this being the case, scientific men who were most willing,
+and even anxious, to assign to Matter a foremost, if not <i>the</i> foremost,
+place in Nature, have done so precisely upon the ground, not of our
+knowledge, but of our ignorance. No better examples need be sought than
+Professor Huxley, and Professor Tyndall, who alike agreed, in the words
+of the latter,<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> "to discern in Matter the promise and potency of
+every form and quality of life." But Huxley took his stand on the
+declaration, that we know so little about Matter as to make it
+impossible to say of what it may not be capable, for we cannot so much
+as be certain of its existence, and use the term only "for the unknown
+and hypothetical causes of our own states of consciousness,"<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> while
+Tyndall described the process, whereby the promise and potency are
+realized, as "the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to the
+intellect of man."</p>
+
+<p>Speculations thus founded upon the absence of evidence, whatever else
+they may be, are certainly no part of Science; and when we turn to what,
+being established by scientific methods, is a possible basis of
+scientific argument, we find that in every instance<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_039" id="page_039">{39}</a></span> it contradicts
+instead of supporting the assertions we have heard.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with the question of Motion, as being both of supreme
+importance, and one more open than some others to observation and
+experiment. According to Professor Haeckel's teaching, "movement is an
+innate and original property of substance," that is to say of Matter,
+and in consequence, "Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted
+movement and transformation." It is by thus attributing to matter an
+inherent determination to move that he meets Du Bois-Reymond's
+difficulty as to the origin of motion.</p>
+
+<p>But this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's Laws, which
+are universally recognized as the most firmly established and
+unquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us that a
+body at rest will continue at rest for ever, unless compelled by some
+force to move; just as a body in motion will continue to move at the
+same rate and in the same direction, unless compelled by force to arrest
+or alter its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole
+of our Natural Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for
+the idea that Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is
+thus quite unscientific. Not self-movement but <i>Inertia</i> is the property
+which Science ascribes to Matter.<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> It may further be observed that
+the idea of inherent motion is absurd<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_040" id="page_040">{40}</a></span> and unintelligible; for movement
+cannot be in more than one direction at a time: so that a mass, or an
+atom, of Matter could tend to move only by having an intrinsic impulse
+in a straight line towards some one particular point. If it should tend
+to move indifferently, in all directions at once, it would remain
+motionless, each such tendency being neutralized by its opposite.</p>
+
+<p>As to the further claim made on behalf of Matter to be endowed with
+Sensation and Will, of any description, it must be enough to say that no
+one has ever pretended to find any evidence whatever to this effect, or
+to detect the faintest trace of such properties;&mdash;and that on the
+contrary, all experience shows inorganic Matter, (that is, Matter not
+incorporated in living animals or plants,) to be utterly lifeless and
+inert. It is a mere abuse and perversion of terms to speak of Science as
+countenancing any conclusion but that to which such experience points.
+The attempt to invest Matter with these attributes Professor Tait
+stigmatizes as "non-science," or "pseudo-science."<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The Pygmalions of modern days [he writes] do not require to beseech
+Aphrodit� to animate the ivory for them. Like the savage with his
+<i>Totem</i>, they have themselves already attributed life to it.... The
+latest phase of this peculiar non-science tells us that all Matter
+is <i>alive</i>; or at least that it contains "the promise and potency"
+<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_041" id="page_041">{41}</a></span>     (whatever these may be) "of all terrestrial life." ... So much for
+the attempts to introduce into Science an element altogether
+incompatible with the fundamental conditions of its existence.</p></div>
+
+<p>In fine, to make us realize not merely how extremely narrow are the
+bounds of our knowledge, but even how much narrower they may be than we
+suppose, there enters upon the scene Radium, like the golden apple that
+came to disturb the harmony of the celestials. What lessons this
+turbulent and unconventional element will ultimately be found to teach,
+and how far it will revolutionize the laws of Nature as hitherto
+accepted, remains, of course, to be seen: but this at least is clear. In
+presence of it, scientific men find that they are sure of nothing they
+thought most certain, not of the indestructibility of matter itself, on
+which is based that Law of Substance which we have seen made responsible
+for so much.</p>
+
+<p>It had been thought that whatever else might change or perish the atoms
+of which we have heard, as the ultimate constituents of Matter, were
+beyond the reach of any vicissitude. "No man," said Dalton, their
+discoverer, "can split an atom." Thus too Mr. Clodd, while acknowledging
+that the constitution even of atoms may some day be found to be liable
+to disorder and decay, clearly teaches that, as a practical certainty,
+we have in them got to something final. Taking one particular kind, an
+oxygen atom, as a text, he thus discourses:<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_042" id="page_042">{42}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It matters not into how many myriad substances&mdash;animal, plant, or
+mineral&mdash;an atom of oxygen may have entered, nor what isolation it
+has undergone: bond or free, it retains its own qualities. It
+matters not how many millions of years have elapsed during these
+changes, age cannot wither or weaken it; amidst all the fierce play
+of the mighty agencies to which it has been subjected it remains
+unbroken and unworn; to it we may apply the ancient words, "the
+things which are not seen are eternal."</p></div>
+
+<p>But now, with the recognition of radio-activity, and the disintegration
+of atoms into their constituent "electrons" which this is held to
+evidence, we have changed all that. Such disintegration, it is affirmed,
+must imply dissolution and death, alike of the atoms themselves and of
+the universe which they compose. As Sir William Crookes told the
+physicists assembled at Berlin, June, 1903:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>This fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal,
+and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk; it works
+in the sunshine and raindrops, in lightnings and flame; it prevails
+in the waterfall and the stormy sea.</p></div>
+
+<p>Matter he consequently regards as doomed to destruction.<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> Sooner or
+later, it will have dissolved into the "formless mist" of "prothyle"<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>
+and "the hour-hand of eternity will have completed one revolution."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_043" id="page_043">{43}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Consequently, we are told,<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The "dissipation of energy" has found its correlative in the
+"dissolution of matter." We are confronted with an appalling sense
+of desolation&mdash;of quasi-annihilation.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is no doubt true, here again, that such judgments cannot be called
+final, and that not all scientific men will accept them as they stand.
+But all alike are forced to agree that our previous notions are
+completely upset, and that we are compelled to recognize the fact that
+of these fundamental questions we know far less than the little we
+seemed to know. What, then, is to be thought of Professor Haeckel's
+confident utterances, which could be justified only on the supposition
+that we know everything? And what becomes of the famous Law of
+Substance, if both its parts are found thus to contradict the conclusion
+he would draw from it?</p>
+
+<p>The case is thus summed up by the writer of the article just cited:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The discovery of radio-activity is one of the most momentous in the
+history of science. "There has been a vivid new start" (we again
+borrow Sir William Crookes' expression). "Our physicists have
+remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter." The
+remodelling indeed has hardly commenced.... What is undeniable is
+that the Daltonian atom has, within a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_044" id="page_044">{44}</a></span> century of its acceptance as
+a fundamental reality, suffered disruption. Its proper place in
+nature is not that formerly assigned to it, ... its reputation for
+inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever. Each of these
+supposed "ultimates" is now known to be the scene of indescribable
+activities, a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of
+parts, a star-cluster in miniature, subject to all kinds of
+dynamical vicissitudes, to perturbation, acceleration, internal
+friction, total or partial disruption. And to each is appointed a
+fixed term of existence. Sooner or later, the balance of
+equilibrium is tilted, disturbance eventuates in overthrow; the
+tiny exquisite system finally breaks up. Of atoms, as of men, it
+may be said with truth, "<i>Quisque suos patitur manes</i>."</p></div>
+
+<p>"Here," in fact, "we meet the impenetrable secret of creative
+agency."<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_045" id="page_045">{45}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="IX" id="IX"></a>IX</h3>
+
+<h4>THE PROBLEM OF LIFE</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HE</small> question concerning the origin and nature of Life is of supreme and
+vital importance not only for those who speak of Evolution as a force or
+principle by which everything is guided and governed, but also for such
+as understand by the term no more than a process which they say has
+actually occurred. Evolutionists of this second class disclaim, with
+Huxley, any "philosophy of Evolution." They are content to take the
+world as a going concern, at the farthest point in the past to which,
+even speculatively, Science can trace it, as that vast primordial nebula
+of which we have heard.<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> Given this,&mdash;assuming the existence of such
+a nebula, constituted as they suppose,&mdash;they believe that the whole
+subsequent history of the world is fully explained by the uniform action
+of the same laws of matter which we find in operation to-day. Not only
+is the establishment of our Solar System, of sun and planets, to be
+thus<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_046" id="page_046">{46}</a></span> accounted for, but likewise the production of life, of the organic
+world of plants and animals.</p>
+
+<p>Hence it necessarily follows that life must originally have been evolved
+naturally from lifeless matter, for all are agreed that not only in the
+nebula, but on the earth when it first started its independent career,
+life did not, and could not, exist.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There has been [says Virchow]<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> a beginning of life, since
+geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life
+was impossible, and when no vestige of it is to be found.</p>
+
+<p>If the evolution hypothesis is true, [says Huxley]<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> living
+matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the
+hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that
+living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely
+incompatible with the gaseous state.</p>
+
+<p>There was a time [says Tyndall]<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> when the earth was a red-hot
+molten globe, on which no life could exist.</p></div>
+
+<p>Accordingly, as Professor Huxley acknowledges, spontaneous generation is
+an evolutionary necessity. Unless such generation can be shown to have
+taken place, or at the very least unless it can be shown to be naturally
+possible, the theory which requires it cannot be an established truth.
+But it is precisely as a scientifically established truth<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_047" id="page_047">{47}</a></span> that the
+doctrine of Evolution is presented to us, so firmly established indeed
+that we are warned "to doubt it is to doubt science."<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> It presents
+itself, moreover, as the most precious result of modern research, the
+appearance of which is as a sunrise illuminating the field of
+knowledge.<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p>
+
+<p>This being so, and it being the first principle of Science that we
+should take nothing on faith and accept only what can be proved, it is
+our plain duty to satisfy ourselves, as scientific methods alone can
+rightly satisfy us, that a doctrine of such paramount importance is
+entitled to demand our acceptance.</p>
+
+<p>What methods can claim to be scientific, all are agreed. Advances in
+science, Professor Tait warns us,<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">come or not, as we remember or forget that our Science is to be
+based entirely upon experiment, or mathematical deduction from
+experiment.</p>
+
+<p>Men of science [says Tyndall] prolong the method of nature from the
+present into the past. The observed uniformity of nature is their
+only guide.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p>
+
+<p>The man of science [says Huxley] has learned to believe in
+justification, not by faith, but by verification.<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>In this manner must we test the Evolution theory, and spontaneous
+generation as an essential element<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_048" id="page_048">{48}</a></span> thereof. We will begin with
+Professor Huxley's statement of what he styles "the fundamental
+proposition of Evolution."<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>That proposition is [he writes] that the whole world, living and
+not-living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to
+definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which
+the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be
+true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay,
+potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient
+intelligence could, from a knowledge of that vapour, have
+predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> with
+as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the breath in
+a cold winter's day.</p></div>
+
+<p>That is to say, the supposed nebula was a vast piece of mechanism, of
+unimaginable complexity, the component parts of which under the
+influence of such forces as gravitation, heat, chemical affinity,
+electricity and magnetism, have produced everything that has since
+appeared on earth, vegetable and animal life amongst the rest. How are
+we to assure ourselves that such was really the case?</p>
+
+<p>Professor Tyndall has told us that the only scientific method is to
+prolong the method of nature from the present into the past, taking her
+observed uniformity for our only guide, and in like manner we have heard
+it laid down by Professor Romanes, that we must assume as a first
+principle<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_049" id="page_049">{49}</a></span> that the laws of nature are always and everywhere the same,
+and that by their uniform operation everything is done. It is therefore
+quite clear that as no man was present when life first made its
+appearance, to observe and record whence it came, the only way in which
+we can possibly proceed, without violating every scientific canon, is to
+argue from what happens now, to what must have happened then,&mdash;to show
+that inorganic matter can in fact generate organic life, and to conclude
+that the same laws must have worked the same results in the past as they
+do in the present.</p>
+
+<p>But this is precisely what cannot be done, for one of the most
+conclusive results of modern research has been to show that in the
+present world spontaneous generation never occurs, that living things
+come only from living parents, and that from organic matter alone can
+the smallest particle of organic matter be derived. <i>Omne vivum e vivo,
+omnis cellula e cellula, omnis nucleus e nucleo.</i> Upon this point there
+is now complete agreement amongst scientific authorities, and what is
+most remarkable, none are more strenuous in upholding the doctrine of
+<i>Biogenesis</i>,<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> than some of those who with equal vehemence proclaim
+the doctrine of Evolution for which the occurrence of spontaneous
+generation is a necessity.</p>
+
+<p>Never, for example, were there Evolutionists<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_050" id="page_050">{50}</a></span> more pronounced than
+Professors Huxley and Tyndall, and they both saw clearly that without
+spontaneous generation there could not have been evolution such as they
+maintained. Yet when the occurrence of spontaneous generation, here and
+now, was asserted by Bastian and Burdon Sanderson, they, following in
+the wake of Pasteur, repudiated the notion, and Tyndall in particular
+conclusively disproved the experiments by which it was supported.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> As
+Huxley wrote to Charles Kingsley:<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of spontogenesis.
+Against the doctrine of spontaneous generation in the abstract I
+have nothing to say. Indeed it is a necessary corollary from
+Darwin's views if legitimately carried out.</p></div>
+
+<p>A few years later, writing to Dr. Dohrn<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> upon the same subject, he
+made use of a phrase&mdash;which in his mouth expressed the uttermost limit
+of disbelief: "Transubstantiation will be nothing to this if it turns
+out true."</p>
+
+<p>In the same year as President of the British Association he chose for
+the subject of his inaugural address, "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis," and,
+after a careful examination of the case for each, pronounced the former
+"to be victorious all along the line."</p>
+
+<p>In spite of all this, however, he assured himself<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_051" id="page_051">{51}</a></span> as an Evolutionist
+that spontaneous generation must once have been not only a possibility
+but a fact. In the same Presidential address, after piling up evidence
+against it&mdash;he thus continued:<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I
+must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend
+to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place
+in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic
+chemistry, molecular physics and physiology yet in their infancy,
+and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the
+height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under
+which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some
+day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in
+affirming is that I see no reason for affirming that the feat has
+been performed yet.</p>
+
+<p>And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find
+no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of
+any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of
+its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a
+serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in
+the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the
+mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be
+using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where
+belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of
+geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the
+earth was passing through physical and dynamical<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_052" id="page_052">{52}</a></span> conditions, which
+it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I
+should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm
+from not living matter.... That is the expectation to which
+analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect
+that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of
+philosophical faith.</p></div>
+
+<p>Here we have the whole state of the case put for us in a nutshell. On
+the one hand, all known facts are against the idea of spontaneous
+generation, and therefore, so far as she can at present go, the verdict
+of Science must condemn that supposition. But, on the other hand, the
+fundamental principle of Evolution cannot be justified unless
+spontaneous generation has taken place, and accordingly, although
+Evolution is the very thing which we should be engaged in establishing
+by the evidence of facts, it is held to be reasonable and scientific to
+infer that facts which we cannot verify must exist because they are
+wanted. It is admitted that the requisite evidence is lacking, and
+therefore we must not go so far as to express belief in the facts: but
+we may indulge in expectations,&mdash;which seem, however, to imply belief in
+the thing expected,&mdash;and meanwhile we may go on believing firmly in the
+Evolution theory itself, which includes belief in the missing facts.
+This, we are told, is "philosophical faith." But, to say nothing of what
+we have heard from others, Professor Huxley elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> warns us
+against<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_053" id="page_053">{53}</a></span> faith as the one unpardonable sin: and as we have heard him
+declare the man of science has learned to believe in justification, not
+by faith, but by verification.</p>
+
+<p>And as to the expectation which he avowed, there appears to be no slight
+force in the response of his adversary Dr. Bastian:<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>What reason [he asks] does Professor Huxley give in explanation of
+his supposition?... The only reason distinctly implied is because
+the physical and chemical conditions of the earth's surface were
+different in the past from what they are now. And yet, concerning
+the exact nature of their differences, or the degree in which the
+different sets of conditions would respectively favour the
+occurrence or arrest of an evolution of living matter, Professor
+Huxley cannot possess even the vaguest knowledge. He chooses to
+assume that the unknown conditions existing in the past were more
+favourable to <i>Archebiosis</i> (life-evolution) than those now in
+operation. This, however, is an assumption which may be entirely
+opposed to the facts.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is thus hard to understand how Professor Huxley could profess to
+justify his expectations by verification, for that the above account of
+the matter is no-wise overstated we have his own acknowledgment:<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Of the causes which have led to the origination of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_054" id="page_054">{54}</a></span> living matter,
+it may be said that we know absolutely nothing.... Science has no
+means to form an opinion on the commencement of life; we can only
+make conjectures without any scientific value.</p></div>
+
+<p>Such a witness as Huxley might well suffice, but the question is so
+important as to make it advisable to call some others, though only a few
+amongst many who testify to the same effect.</p>
+
+<p>Like his friend and ally Huxley, Professor Tyndall believed that
+spontaneous generation had once occurred, and denied that it occurs now.
+As to the former article of his creed he was even more pronounced in his
+materialism. We have already heard him proclaim that in matter is to be
+discerned the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. He likewise
+inclined to believe that not only life but consciousness is immanent
+everywhere, in the vegetable and mineral no less than in the animal
+world,<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> and that not merely life and consciousness, but:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>All our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our
+art&mdash;Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael&mdash;are potential in the
+fires of the sun.<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>Beliefs such as these might be thought to imply that the genesis of life
+is a simple affair, but Tyndall was no less convinced than Huxley that,
+as things are, it cannot be obtained without antecedent life<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_055" id="page_055">{55}</a></span> on which
+to draw. Having described the experiments devised to test the matter, he
+thus concludes:<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Here, as in all other cases, the evidence in favour of spontaneous
+generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer.</p></div>
+
+<p>At the same time, he was equally certain that life must have had an
+inorganic origin and that Science bids us so to believe. His various
+utterances are not, it is true, very easily reconciled. On the one hand
+he lays it down that "Without verification a theoretic conception is a
+mere figment of the intellect." On the other hand in his Belfast Address
+he thus expressed himself:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Believing, as I do, in the continuity of nature, I cannot stop
+abruptly where our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision
+of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By a
+necessity engendered and justified by Science I cross the boundary
+of the experimental evidence.... If you ask me whether there exists
+the least evidence to prove that any form of life can be developed
+out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life.... [men of
+science] will frankly admit their inability to point to any
+satisfactory experimental proof that life can be developed, save
+from demonstrable antecedent life.</p></div>
+
+<p>Far, however, from being a mere figment, his<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_056" id="page_056">{56}</a></span> mental vision is
+represented as the most unalloyed product of reason. He writes:<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Were not man's origin implicated, we should accept without a murmur
+the derivation of animal and vegetable life from what we call
+inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way
+and no other.</p></div>
+
+<p>The conclusion of pure intellect, however, having nothing to show for
+itself in the way of evidence, we are again referred to a condition of
+things concerning which we know, and can know, nothing.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Supposing [writes the Professor]<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> a planet carved from the sun,
+set spinning round an axis, and revolving round the sun at a
+distance from him equal to that of our earth, would one of the
+consequences of its refrigeration be the development of organic
+forms? I lean to the affirmative.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is no doubt interesting to know to what opinion the Professor
+inclined, but is this sort of thing Science?</p>
+
+<p>In the same manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, the philosopher of evolution
+<i>par excellence</i>, thus reports:<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world
+no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of
+non-living matter. They do not<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_057" id="page_057">{57}</a></span> deny, however, that at a remote
+period in the past, when the temperature of the surface of the
+earth was much higher than at present, and other physical
+conditions were <i>unlike those we know</i>,<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> inorganic matter,
+through successive complications, gave origin to organic
+matter.<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin himself, who is constantly supposed to have upheld, or even
+to have demonstrated, the fact of spontaneous generation, is amongst the
+strongest witnesses against it. He was indeed disposed to believe that
+the living will some day be found to be producible from the lifeless,
+the ground of his expectation being the "Law of Continuity,"<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> or the
+assumption that from the beginning of nature to the end one only kind of
+law uniformly operates, namely the same as we now experience. But this
+is to assume the whole<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_058" id="page_058">{58}</a></span> question at issue, for unless it can be shewn
+that there has been spontaneous generation, we cannot be assured that
+there is such a Law of Continuity. And despite his expectation Darwin
+always denied that the origin of life has been&mdash;sometimes even that it
+can be&mdash;explained. Thus he wrote on various occasions:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one
+might as well think of the origin of matter.<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p>
+
+<p>As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and
+though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will
+be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the
+confines of Science.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a></p>
+
+<p>No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced
+in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic
+matter.<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>Here we may conveniently pause and take stock of our results. On the one
+hand, we are bidden in the name of Science to learn the past from the
+present, and the present from observation and experiment alone. On the
+other, we are invited to believe in an occurrence which observation and
+experiment negative in the present, on the ground that the circumstances
+must once have been entirely different from any with which we are
+acquainted. Obviously, the real motive of belief is that na�vely
+expressed by Professor Haeckel, who tells us that spontaneous generation
+is proved by the doctrine<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_059" id="page_059">{59}</a></span> of Evolution;<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> which then in its turn is
+proved by spontaneous generation.</p>
+
+<p>Two points must however be noticed in which it is attempted to find
+present evidence in favour of spontaneous generation.</p>
+
+<p>First, there is Protoplasm&mdash;the "Physical Basis of Life," or Living
+Matter, being that form of matter by which life is always accompanied.
+In this no chemical element unknown elsewhere, is to be found; the cells
+of which it consists are compounded of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and
+Carbon; and it has been argued, especially by Huxley, that it is
+therefore not different in kind from other compounds; that as Oxygen and
+Hydrogen form water, Oxygen and Carbon, Carbonic Acid, Hydrogen and
+Nitrogen, Ammonia,&mdash;so the four combined, in proper circumstances and
+proportions, make Living Matter, without the aid of any vital force or
+principle. And Haeckel with his habitual audacity foretells the
+artificial production of Protoplasm for purposes of commerce. But, as
+Mr. Stirling observes,<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> man has always known that he is made of dust,
+and that the only part of him perceptible to sense is substantially the
+same as the earth beneath his feet. All that he now learns in addition
+is that when such matter is wedded to life it undergoes marvellous
+transformations which in part at least we are able to recognize, but are
+wholly unable to comprehend. This Professor Huxley himself admits:<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_060" id="page_060">{60}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p>The properties of living matter [he writes]<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> distinguish it
+absolutely from all other kinds of things, and the present state of
+knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the
+not-living.</p></div>
+
+<p>Not only that: the subject is full of complexities of which Professor
+Huxley gives no hint, and which it would even seem he did not himself
+perceive. In his celebrated lecture on the Physical Basis of Life<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> he
+gives his hearers to understand that all Protoplasm is the same, that
+its particles are as the bricks with which any sort of edifice may be
+constructed, a cathedral or a gin-shop, a palace or a hovel. The
+protoplasm of a mushroom, for instance, he declares to be essentially
+identical with that of him who eats it, into which it is most readily
+convertible. He also speaks of the effect of eating mutton being to
+"transubstantiate sheep into man." But, positive as are these
+statements, they are far from representing scientific truths, and we are
+told by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer that he himself would not know what
+to do with a candidate who should advance such views in an
+examination.<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> As to the mushroom and the mutton, Sir William adds,
+that except the definition of a crab, as a red fish that runs backwards,
+attributed to the French Academy, he can call to mind no statement "so
+compact of error."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_061" id="page_061">{61}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In reality, instead of all Protoplasm being the same, the differences
+are infinite. Particles from different sources may be indistinguishable
+by the microscope or by any test that chemistry can apply, but this only
+increases the mystery of their nature, for each has its own functions
+and will perform no others. The Protoplasm of a plant will do what that
+of an animal, seemingly identical, cannot do. That of a fish will
+convert the same nutriment into quite a different formation from that of
+a man.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is no doubt true that a particle of fungoid differs in no
+appreciable physical respect from one of human protoplasm, yet the
+former will never emerge from the fate of the humble mushroom,
+while the other may be instinct with the thoughts of a Prime
+Minister.<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>As Mr. Stirling sums up the matter:<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There is nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,
+muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues, no one
+of which but produces only its own kind, and is uninterchangeable
+with the rest. Lastly, we have the overwhelming fact that there is
+the infinitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely
+different plants and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm,
+as in the case of the various tissues, but produces its own kind,
+and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_062" id="page_062">{62}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It thus appears that the character of Protoplasm, far from making it
+easier to conceive the mechanical production of living things, does but
+immensely aggravate the difficulty. As Sir William Thiselton-Dyer avows:
+"I do not see even the beginning of a materialistic theory of
+protoplasm." And Haeckel's idea that we shall succeed in creating
+organic life does not commend itself to such an authority as Sir Henry
+Roscoe:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is true [he says]<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> that there are those who profess to
+foresee that the day will arise when the chemist, by a succession
+of constructive efforts may pass beyond albumen, and gather the
+elements of lifeless matter into a living structure. Whatever may
+be said of this from other standpoints, the chemist can only say
+that at present no such problem lies within his province.
+Protoplasm, with which the simplest manifestations of life are
+associated, is not a compound, but a structure built up of
+compounds. The chemist may successfully synthesize any of its
+component compounds, but he has no more reason to look forward to
+the synthetic production of the structure than to imagine that the
+synthesis of gallic acid leads to the artificial production of
+gall-nuts.</p></div>
+
+<p>And M. de Quatrefages thus sums up the conclusions at which he arrives
+from minute study of the lowest forms of life:<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_063" id="page_063">{63}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p>I make bold to affirm that the deeper Science penetrates into the
+secrets of organization and phenomena, the more does she
+demonstrate how wide and how profound is the abyss which separates
+brute matter from living things.</p></div>
+
+<p>The other point requiring notice is crystallization. Inorganic matter,
+as we know, can build up crystals, the wonderful structure of which
+results from the molecular properties of the substance crystallized. Why
+then, some would ask, may not matter in the same manner produce
+Protoplasm?</p>
+
+<p>But, in the first place, this, as we have heard, is what it is never
+found to do. Crystals we can produce at pleasure, in what quantity we
+will. But all efforts have not yet succeeded in obtaining the most
+minute speck of living matter. Moreover, nothing can be more widely
+different from organic structures than crystals. The latter are always
+mathematical, the former never: the latter grow by outside accretion, of
+the one kind of particles whereof they consist: the former by absorption
+and assimilation of various foreign substances: the latter are wholly
+independent of anything like an ancestor: for the former an ancestor is
+in our experience indispensable: crystals can be dissolved and
+recrystallized: living matter once destroyed can never be reconstituted.
+Above all, the particles incorporated in the crystal are absolutely
+quiescent, so far as any portion of matter can be said to be so, no more
+able to change their position without external force than the bricks in
+a wall, while those<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_064" id="page_064">{64}</a></span> in living tissue at once become subject to "the
+whirlwind of life," involving constant change the cessation of which is
+death.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is inexplicable to me [says M. de Quatrefages]<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> that some
+men whose merits I otherwise acknowledge, should have compared
+crystals to the simplest living forms.... These forms are the
+antipodes of the crystal from every point of view.</p></div>
+
+<p>To the same effect speaks Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin's associate in
+the discovery of the Darwinian theory. In a work expressly devoted to
+the vindication of that theory, Mr. Wallace declares that far from the
+way of evolution being made clear by Science from end to end&mdash;"there are
+at least three stages in the development of the organic world where some
+new cause or power must necessarily have come into action." And at the
+head of them he places that which we are now considering, writing
+thus:<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the
+earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it
+arose, first appeared.... There is in this something quite beyond
+and apart from chemical changes however complex; and it has been
+well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the
+world, possessing altogether new powers....<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_065" id="page_065">{65}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Such testimonies are sufficient for our present purpose. In face of them
+it cannot be pretended that Science <i>knows</i> anything of spontaneous
+generation or gives her verdict in its favour. On the contrary, as
+Professor Tait declares:<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to speak of its
+higher forms, still less of volition and consciousness, can be
+fully <i>explained</i> on physical principles alone, ... is simply
+unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science
+which can lend the slightest support to such an idea.... To suppose
+that life, even in its lowest form, is wholly material, involves
+either a denial of the truth of Newton's laws of motion, or an
+erroneous use of the term "Matter." Both are alike unscientific.</p></div>
+
+<p>Yet it is precisely in the name of Science that we have been told to
+accept the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter, as a
+clearly demonstrated truth, and no riddle at all.</p>
+
+<p>But as Professor Virchow, Evolutionist and Materialist as he was, well
+said in regard of this very point in the Munich Congress of 1877:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If we would speak frankly, we must admit that naturalists may well
+have some little sympathy for the <i>generatio aequivoca</i>
+[spontaneous generation]. If it were capable of proof, it would
+indeed be beautiful! But, we must acknowledge, it has not yet been
+proved. The proofs of it are still wanting.... Whoever recalls<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_066" id="page_066">{66}</a></span> to
+mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts to discover a
+decided support for the <i>generatio aequivoca</i> in the lower forms of
+transition from the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it
+doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly discredited,
+should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of
+life.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_067" id="page_067">{67}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="X" id="X"></a>X</h3>
+
+<h4>ANIMAL AND MAN</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">L<small>EAVING</small> for later consideration the fourth of Du Bois-Reymond's Unsolved
+Enigmas, namely the seemingly pre-ordained order of the universe, we may
+conveniently group together the three which follow it, as much
+resembling that which has just occupied our attention. These problems,
+it will be remembered, are (<i>a</i>) the origin of simple sensation and
+consciousness, or, in other words, of the faculties possessed by
+animals; (<i>b</i>) that of rational thought and speech; (<i>c</i>)
+Free-will.&mdash;Here again we are bound to ask, in the name of right reason
+and common-sense, what light has really been thrown on such questions by
+Science, and how far she has changed their aspect,&mdash;that so we may guard
+against the delusion of imagining ourselves to be in possession of more
+knowledge than we actually possess.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>a</i>) <i>Simple sensation and consciousness.</i> As regards the actual origin
+of the higher form of life which distinguishes the animal from the
+vegetable, we are obviously no better informed than we have found
+ourselves to be concerning the first beginnings of life in any form,&mdash;no
+evidence as to the actual facts being<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_068" id="page_068">{68}</a></span> available, or even possible, for
+our enlightenment. Once more we can only argue from the present to the
+past, and enquire whether the progress of science has made it more
+reasonable to suppose than it seemed in pre-scientific days that animal
+life has been spontaneously evolved, either from inanimate matter or
+from the vegetative life of plants. This enquiry so much resembles that
+which we have just concluded as to make it unnecessary to pursue it at
+any length.</p>
+
+<p>We find, in fact, that men of Science who have no prepossessions
+whatever against Evolution, and would willingly accept the Law of
+Continuity at all points, if only evidence were forthcoming, find here
+not only an unsolved problem, but one even more difficult than the
+Origin of Life itself. Du Bois-Reymond for example places this amongst
+his "transcendental" enigmas, to which an answer will never be found,
+whereas he thinks that the origin of vegetable life, although at present
+a mystery, may one day be explained. The expression of his
+opinion,&mdash;that by no possibility can we ever understand how
+consciousness could be evolved from matter&mdash;has, he tells us<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> been
+vehemently contradicted, but, he adds, nothing in the way of argument,
+or beyond mere assumptions, has been brought against him. Of these
+assumptions he notices only that of Professor Haeckel, "the Prophet of
+Jena," who protests against such limitations of our possibilities as
+treason to the sacred cause of Evolution.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_069" id="page_069">{69}</a></span> The progress we have made in
+intellect, says Haeckel, beyond our barbarous progenitors, is sufficient
+to show that we are on the high road of development towards a stage as
+far in advance of the present, as this is of the past; and when that is
+attained, our knowledge will be full and will embrace all this. But,
+asks Du Bois-Reymond in reply, is this mighty progress of ours so very
+evident within the period concerning which we have any information? Has
+the mental capacity of our race notably improved since Homer?<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> or
+its faculty of thinking since Plato and Aristotle? At our present rate
+of progress, long before the high-water mark prophesied by Haeckel is
+reached, the earth will have become uninhabitable. And, were it
+otherwise, the highest point of intellect to which conceivably man could
+attain, would be that of the "sufficient intelligence" whereof we have
+been told, which, from an inspection of the cosmic nebula could foretell
+all that was to issue from it. And, adds Du Bois-Reymond, even could we
+do this, we should still be unable to understand the origin of
+consciousness, which would require intelligence of another order than
+ours, however magnified.</p>
+
+<p>So again Mr. Wallace tells us,<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> after speaking of the beginning of
+life as we have already heard,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_070" id="page_070">{70}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The next stage is still more marvellous, still more completely
+beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and
+forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness,
+constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
+vegetable kingdoms. Here all idea of mere complication of structure
+producing the result is out of the question. We feel it to be
+altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of
+complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
+that complexity alone, an <i>ego</i> should start into existence, a
+thing that <i>feels</i>, that is conscious of its own existence. Here we
+have the certainty that something new has arisen, a being whose
+nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and
+definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals. No
+verbal explanation or attempt at explanation&mdash;such as the statement
+that life is the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm,
+or that the whole existing organic universe from the am&oelig;ba up to
+man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was
+developed&mdash;can afford any mental satisfaction, or help us in any
+way to a solution of the mystery.</p></div>
+
+<p>Unquestionably, there is no lack of speakers and writers who flatly
+contradict such views, and assert that animal life, equally with
+vegetable, could be, and must have been, naturally evolved from
+inorganic nature. The above testimonies, however, amply suffice for our
+present purpose, and with them we may be satisfied; for at least they
+make it plain that Science has found no evidence as to the origin of
+sensation and consciousness<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_071" id="page_071">{71}</a></span> conclusive enough to compel belief. And
+where there is no scientific evidence even alleged, such as might
+require the training of a specialist for its due appreciation, one man
+of ordinary intelligence is as competent a judge as another, and
+scientific experts are on a level with the rest of us.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>b</i>) <i>Rational thought and speech.</i> What has just been said applies
+with equal force to this matter likewise. Unless Science have some
+positive evidence to bring, demonstrating how the gulf can be bridged
+which separates the intelligence of the most degraded races of men from
+the highest of the brutes, and how articulate language can spontaneously
+have arisen, which is the necessary appanage of reason, we have all
+equally the means of forming our conclusions on the subject.</p>
+
+<p>That the gulf between man and the lower animals is here immense we have
+the evidence of Mr. Darwin.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>No doubt [he writes]<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> the difference is in this respect
+enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages,
+who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who
+uses no abstract terms for the commonest objects or affections,
+with that of the most highly organized ape. The difference would,
+no doubt, still remain immense, even if one of the highest apes had
+been improved and civilized as much as a dog has been in comparison
+with its parent form, the wolf<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_072" id="page_072">{72}</a></span> or jackal. The Fuegians rank
+amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with
+surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. <i>Beagle</i>,
+who had lived some years in England and could talk a little
+English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental
+faculties.</p></div>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin goes on to argue, however, that the difference between man
+and beast is one of degree only and not of kind; that this can be
+"clearly shewn"; and that there is unquestionably</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest
+fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
+between an ape and a man; yet this immense interval is filled up by
+numberless gradations,</p></div>
+
+<p class="nind">from which he concludes that by a like series of steps, of which,
+however, no trace is left, our progenitors have been able to mount from
+the simian to the human level.</p>
+
+<p>Clear however as Mr. Darwin pronounces the evidence to be, it is very
+far from being so considered by other eminent naturalists. So convinced
+an Evolutionist as Mr. Mivart, for example, declared on various
+occasions that his reason abundantly sufficed to convince him that there
+was a wider break in nature between man and the highest ape, than
+between the highest ape and an oyster or even a mushroom.</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that the evidence which permits judgments so diverse as
+these cannot be said conclusively<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_073" id="page_073">{73}</a></span> to prove the former existence of a
+bridge every vestige of which has, by the acknowledgment of all parties,
+entirely disappeared. We are therefore left to determine for ourselves,
+whether the powers of our own mind, as each knows them in himself, are
+of a totally different nature from those of dogs and horses, and
+chimpanzees such as the late lamented "Consul," or whether we are
+superior only in degree, as a sheep-dog is more intelligent than a
+sheep, or a fox than a goose.</p>
+
+<p>If in any respect such an enquiry can be made definite and therefore
+profitable, it is clearly in regard of Language. This, as said above, is
+an essential adjunct of reason such as ours, and on the other hand it
+forms the plainest boundary between the domain of the human race and
+that of the brutes. It is, says Professor Max M�ller, our Rubicon on the
+hither side of which men alone are found. Given reason such as ours,
+whatever mode of communication might be open to them, we cannot suppose
+its possessors failing to establish a medium of intercourse. In existing
+conditions, man can make an alphabet out of the clicks of a needle or
+the flashes of a mirror, and if his vocal organs were no better than
+those of a baboon, we cannot imagine him content generation after
+generation with inarticulate howls and yells. But this is just the case
+of the animals. They are <i>never</i> found to make the smallest progress in
+the direction of a code of signals. Dogs indeed, as Mr. Darwin
+says,<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> having<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_074" id="page_074">{74}</a></span> developed in captivity the new art of barking, have
+further learnt to vary this accomplishment according to the
+circumstances that provoke it, and have distinct tones to express the
+diversity of their feelings, as when hunting, or angry, or setting out
+for a walk, or shut up in a kennel or out of a house. Some dogs, he
+might have added, refine still further, and will betray by their style
+of bark not only that they are hunting something, but what it is that
+they have come upon, whether a rabbit, a cat, or a hedgehog. But, as the
+Chevalier Bunsen observes,<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> and his observation includes such
+manifestations as the above:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Animal sounds are the echoes of blind instincts within, or of the
+phenomena of the outward world, uttered by suffering or satisfied
+animal nature, and in all cases resulting from mere passiveness.</p></div>
+
+<p>By rational language, on the other hand, is signified, to quote Mr.
+Mivart:<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The external manifestation, whether by sound or gesture, of general
+conceptions:&mdash;not emotional expressions or the manifestations of
+sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judgments as to
+"the what," "the how," and "the why."</p></div>
+
+<p>Consequently, as Bunsen declares:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The theories about the origin of language have followed<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_075" id="page_075">{75}</a></span> those
+about the origin of thought, and have shared their fate. The
+materialists have never been able to show the possibility of the
+first step. They attempt to veil their inability by the easy but
+fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to
+explain the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions
+of years could supply the want of the agent necessary for the first
+movement, for the first step in the line of progress! No numbers
+can effect a logical impossibility. How indeed could reason spring
+out of a state which is destitute of reason? How can speech, the
+expression of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of
+years, out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of
+pleasure, pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will
+always shrink from such theories.</p></div>
+
+<p>Bunsen's words were echoed even more forcibly by professor Max M�ller,
+speaking as President of the Anthropological Section of the British
+Association at Cardiff in 1889.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>What [he asked] does Bunsen consider the real barrier between man
+and beast? It is language, which is unattainable, or at least
+unattained, by any animal except man.</p>
+
+<p>You know [he continued] how for a time, and chiefly owing to
+Darwin's predominating influence, every conceivable effort was made
+to reduce the distance which language places between man and beast,
+and to treat language as a vanishing line in the mental evolution
+of animal and man. It required some courage at times to<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_076" id="page_076">{76}</a></span> stand up
+against the authority of Darwin, but at present all serious
+thinkers agree, I believe, with Bunsen, that no animal has ever
+developed what we mean by rational language, as distinct from mere
+utterances of pleasure or pain, a subject lately treated with great
+fulness by Professor Romanes. Still, if all true science is based
+on facts, the fact remains that no animal has ever found what we
+mean by a language; and we are fully justified, therefore, in
+holding with Bunsen and Humboldt, as against Darwin and Romanes,
+that there <i>is</i> a specific difference between the human animal and
+all other animals, and that that difference consists in language as
+the outward manifestation of what the Greeks meant by <i>Logos</i>.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is moreover evident that, far from speech having generated reason, as
+some have preposterously maintained, it is reason which generates
+speech, no less inevitably than sunlight produces the spectrum when it
+passes through a prism. The seeming paradox of Wilhelm von Humboldt is
+in fact a sober truth: "Man is man only through speech, but in order to
+invent it he must already be man." We have plain evidence that before
+means for the internal expression of it are found, the mental word
+(<i>verbum mentale</i>) is awaiting them, and that without this it would be
+as impossible for any sort of rational speech to be produced as for an
+apple to be grown without an apple-tree.</p>
+
+<p>Evidence to this effect is furnished by recorded instances of persons
+who from early childhood, or<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_077" id="page_077">{77}</a></span> even from birth, were deaf, dumb, and
+blind, and appeared to be cut off from all possibility of human
+converse, the "gates of Mansoul" being thus almost entirely closed. Such
+are the well-known cases of Laura Bridgman, Miss Keller, and Martha
+Obrecht, who had been thus afflicted since their earliest childhood, the
+two first named from the age of two, and the last from that of three
+years.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> Also the more recent instance of Marie Heurtin, who was so
+born, and consequently could not have even the faintest glimmer of any
+knowledge these senses could convey.<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> Yet, by the exercise of
+ingenious and unwearied charity, a means of communication was elaborated
+through the sense of touch, and the souls which had seemingly been
+buried alive, shewed themselves responsive to such advances,&mdash;often
+astonishingly so,&mdash;and revealed their possession of faculties identical
+with those of their rescuers. We are told, for example, of Marie Heurtin
+that her intelligence proved to be quick, that she was even "unusually
+clever, evidently eager for knowledge, and, as sometimes happens, her
+faculties being prevented by her infirmity from wasting their powers on
+external objects, were all the more fresh and vigorous." Even more
+wonderful is the case of Miss Keller, who attained a degree of culture
+and accomplishment far beyond the common level of those possessing the
+use of all their senses.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_078" id="page_078">{78}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Somewhat akin to such instances is that of the savages from Tierra del
+Fuego mentioned above by Mr. Darwin. In their case likewise, when they
+were brought into communication with people possessed of higher culture
+than their own degraded race, it was found that the corresponding
+faculties within them were not dead, or as yet non-existent, but only
+starved into lethargy; and, the opportunity being given, they speedily
+caused surprise by unmistakable proofs how closely they resemble
+ourselves.</p>
+
+<p>Thus we find that in this branch of our enquiry there is one broad fact,
+which all must recognize and none can deny. No race of men has ever been
+known which could not speak, nor any race of animals which could, or
+which had made the first beginnings of intelligent language. Facts being
+the only groundwork of Science here is undoubtedly something whereon she
+may build an inference, and this inference will certainly not be that
+the faculties of men and animals are radically identical. And if we are
+told, as we constantly are, that it is more truly scientific to admit
+such identity, should there not be some other facts, still more
+significant and equally well established, to exhibit on the other side?</p>
+
+<p>But of what character are the arguments actually adduced? It will be
+sufficient to quote a few which come with the highest authority.</p>
+
+<p>We may start with the almost classical specimen contributed by Mr.
+Darwin himself.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_079" id="page_079">{79}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It does not [he says]<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> appear altogether incredible that some
+unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the
+growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys
+the nature of the expected danger. And this would have been a first
+step in the formation of a language.</p></div>
+
+<p>Similarly Professor Whitney writes of some supposed "pithecoid"<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a>
+men:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There is no difficulty in supposing them to have possessed forms of
+speech, more rudimentary and imperfect than ours.<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>And so again Professor Romanes:<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Let us try to imagine a community considerably more intelligent
+than the existing anthropoid apes, although still considerably
+below the intellectual level of existing savages. It is certain
+that in such a community natural signs of voice, gesture, and
+grimace would be in vogue to a greater or less extent. As their
+numbers increased ... such signs would require to become more and
+more conventional, or acquire more and more the character of
+sentence-words.</p></div>
+
+<p>Of course, as Mr. Mivart replies,<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> there is no difficulty in
+supposing anything we choose, or in seeing animals in imagination
+performing feats<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_080" id="page_080">{80}</a></span> which never yet have they been known to achieve in
+fact. But no amount of such suppositions or imaginations will furnish
+Science with the scantiest apology for a foothold, nor can the germs of
+language attributed to pithecoid communities or the sagest of their
+patriarchs, be considered as of any greater value than the speeches put
+into the mouths of the animals by �sop or "Uncle Remus."</p>
+
+<p>It is also to be noticed that in these accounts of the origin of
+language, the essential element of reason is always quietly smuggled in
+as a matter of course. Thus Mr. Darwin's wisest of the pithecoids was
+able to "think of" a device for the information of his fellows. There is
+not the smallest doubt that any creature which had got so far as <i>that</i>
+would find what he wanted. It is but the old case of the man who was
+sure he could have written Hamlet had he had a mind to do so. Like him,
+the ape might have made the invention, if he had a mind to make
+it;&mdash;only he had not got the mind. So too, Professor Romanes' missing
+links use tones and signs which acquire "more and more" the character of
+true speech: which could not be unless they contained some measure of
+that character already. But it is just the first step thus ignored which
+spans the gulf between man and brute.</p>
+
+<p>There is another factor upon which, in conjunction with these
+suppositions, great stress is wont to be laid, namely that of time; it
+being apparently taken for granted that if only time enough be given
+anything whatever may come about. Thus Professor<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_081" id="page_081">{81}</a></span> Romanes tells us<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a>
+that his imaginary <i>Homo alalus</i>, or speechless man, must probably have
+lived for an "inconceivably long time," before getting far enough on the
+road towards speech to give him such an advantage as enabled him to
+crush out his less accomplished congeners; and that even after this
+point was reached, another "inconceivable lapse of time" must have been
+required to turn him into <i>Homo sapiens</i>, or man as he actually is.
+Immense intervals, he further tells us, must have been consumed in the
+passage through various grades of mental evolution; "The epoch during
+which sentence-words prevailed was probably immense"; "It was not until
+�ons of ages had elapsed that any pronouns arose."</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, there is no scrap of evidence that as a matter of fact any
+thing of all this ever happened at all, and as Bunsen has observed no
+millions of years, even were millions available at discretion, could
+ever supply the want of the faculty without which nothing in the way of
+language could ever be accomplished.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>c</i>) <i>Free-will.</i>&mdash;Here is another human faculty which Du Bois-Reymond
+declares never to have been accounted for by natural causation, and he
+greatly doubts whether it should not be classed among the problems that
+must be for ever insoluble.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Haeckel, as we have seen, gets rid of all difficulties on this
+score by laying it down that "the freedom of the will is not an object
+for critical<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_082" id="page_082">{82}</a></span> scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+on an illusion, and has no real existence."</p>
+
+<p>It is plain that for his purpose this is the only course possible. If
+the will be really free, there can be no question of finding a
+mechanical explanation of it. There is therefore no alternative but to
+cut the Gordian knot, and to declare that the liberty which the vast
+majority of men believe themselves to exercise every instant, is proved
+by Science to be no better than a pure dogma, that is to say, a mere
+figment.</p>
+
+<p>When we seek for his indication of the line of argument whereby this
+position is made good, the information supplied is less full than might
+be desired. He begins<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> with a rather lengthy sketch of the history
+of controversy in this regard,&mdash;which contains the remarkable statement
+that "Some of the first teachers of the Christian Churches&mdash;such as St.
+Augustine and Calvin&mdash;rejected the freedom of the will as decidedly as
+the famous leaders of pure Materialism, Holbach in the eighteenth, and
+B�chner in the nineteenth century." Then he proceeds:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The great struggle between the determinist and the indeterminist,
+between the opponent and the sustainer of the freedom of the will,
+has ended to-day after more than 2,000 years, completely in favour
+of the determinist. The human will has no more freedom than that of
+the higher animals, from which it differs only in degree, not in
+kind. In the last [i.e. the eighteenth]<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_083" id="page_083">{83}</a></span> century the doctrine of
+liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological
+arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different
+weapons for its definitive destruction&mdash;the powerful weapons which
+we find in the arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We
+now know that each act of the will is as fatally determined by the
+organization of the individual, and as dependent on the momentary
+condition of his environment, as every other psychic activity. The
+character of the inclination was determined long ago by <i>heredity</i>
+from parents and ancestors; the determination to each particular
+act is an instance of <i>adaptation</i> to the circumstances of the
+moment wherein the strongest motive prevails, according to the laws
+which govern the statics of emotion. Ontogeny teaches us to
+understand the evolution of the will in the individual child.
+Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development of the will
+within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors.<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>That is all. It is needless to observe that jargon like this proves
+nothing. Of anything approaching to evidence there is here, manifestly,
+no vestige, and there is consequently nothing which can avail to win our
+assent as rational men.</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise obvious that we have here a question<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_084" id="page_084">{84}</a></span> as to which every
+human being has the means of judging equally with the most eminent man
+of Science, and modern improvement of the methods and instruments of
+research leaves us just where we always were. The final evidence on the
+subject every man has within himself, in the most vital facts of his own
+experience. Into the philosophy of the matter it is neither necessary
+nor advisable at present to go. In dealing with profound yet elementary
+questions, regarding which our means of knowledge are thus simple and
+direct, men are apt to bewilder themselves when they begin to
+philosophize, and to persuade themselves that they cannot be sure
+precisely of those things that are most certain. George Borrow is by no
+means the only one who has tormented himself with doubts as to his own
+existence.<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> A still larger number have professed to believe
+themselves mere machines compelled to go like clocks, and to do only
+what has been predetermined for them. But such beliefs are for the
+lecture-room or the study only, and in practical life every one behaves
+as if both he himself and others&mdash;especially others&mdash;were responsible
+for their conduct. So common-sense teaches, than which we shall not find
+a safer guide. "Sir," said the eminently common-sense Dr. Johnson, "we
+<i>know</i> our will is free; and <i>there's</i> an end on't. All theory is
+against the freedom of the will; all experience for it.... But, Sir, as
+to the doctrine of necessity, no<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_085" id="page_085">{85}</a></span> man believes it. If a man should give
+me arguments that I cannot answer to prove that I cannot see; because I
+cannot answer his arguments, do I believe that I have no eyes?"</p>
+
+<p>Thus we find once again that the doctrines which some would force upon
+us in the name of Science, on whatever they are founded, have no basis
+of fact, and cannot therefore rightly call themselves scientific.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_086" id="page_086">{86}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XI" id="XI"></a>XI</h3>
+
+<h4>THE ORDER OF NATURE</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">T<small>HAT</small> the world which we inhabit is a <i>Cosmos</i>, ruled by law and order,
+no one has ever attempted to deny. Only because laws are everywhere
+found awaiting discovery, is natural science a possibility. What such
+laws really are, we have already considered. They are, as Mr. Lewes puts
+it, the paths along which the forces of nature travel to their results;
+and it is only because these forces keep invariably each to its proper
+path, that we are able to follow them with our minds, either to learn
+anything concerning them, or to turn our knowledge to practical account.
+In something of the same manner, it is because we are assured that our
+railway trains will run on their appointed lines, that we can learn from
+Bradshaw how to get to Exeter or to Edinburgh;&mdash;but the forces of Nature
+are never derailed. It is, in fact, as we have heard, the first
+principle of Science, that "the reign of law is universal, the principle
+of continuity ubiquitous,"&mdash;and upon this the validity of all her
+methods and conclusions wholly depends. It is taken for granted, with
+absolute confidence, that what is once found to happen<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_087" id="page_087">{87}</a></span> will be exactly
+repeated in like circumstances,&mdash;that the laws experimentally observed,
+regarding motion, heat, light, sound, chemical combination, electricity,
+magnetism, and the rest, will be faithfully obeyed, in every minutest
+particular, as certainly as suns will rise and set, or moons wax and
+wane. Were it not so, were the forces of Nature to act spasmodically and
+at random, and did not their common action so result as to establish or
+subserve other laws of bewildering complexity,&mdash;as in molecular
+dynamics, the mechanism of the heavens, and the processes of organic
+life,&mdash;we could learn no more from the study of nature than from a page
+of type which had been set up by an idiot, or an anthropoid ape.</p>
+
+<p>Here is another factor in our problem, and one which has from the first
+attracted the attention of thinking men. No feature of nature impressed
+them more than this same reign of law and order, apparent everywhere;
+and on this account they called the world <i>Cosmos</i>, instead of <i>Chaos</i>.
+And, since it is self-evident that everything must have a reason for its
+being, that whatever is not self-existent must have a cause other than
+itself, they felt compelled to enquire what manner of cause would
+account for law and order. The like enquiry we have still to pursue, and
+by methods radically the same as ever; for amid all her discoveries
+Science has found nothing which does anything whatever to furnish an
+answer. All that has been done is enormously to multiply the aspects
+under which the problem presents itself.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_088" id="page_088">{88}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is now not merely in the larger and more obvious operations of Nature
+that we can trace this marvellous ubiquity of law, but in her most
+hidden processes and inmost constitution. At every point, we are forced
+to ask why things should be as they actually are, and how they came to
+be subject to conditions which they cannot be supposed to have created
+for themselves. Why, for example, should the ultimate elements of
+matter,&mdash;be they atoms, or electrons, or whatever else,&mdash;always and
+everywhere observe the same rules of the great game in which they serve
+as counters? Why, to take a concrete instance, should atoms of Hydrogen
+in Sirius, or in a star of the Milky Way, obey just the same laws as do
+those with which we make coal-gas or spirit of salt? These various
+atoms, as Lord Grimthorpe reminds us, have never been within billions of
+miles of one another. What is the mysterious influence which links them
+together across the depths of space? That they are so linked is obvious;
+for if we can ascertain the existence of such a substance in other
+spheres, it is only because the light it emits, exactly agrees when
+analyzed in the spectroscope with that of hydrogen flames in our own
+laboratories. How comes it, again, that the seventy different kinds of
+atoms, (to speak in round numbers)&mdash;are distributed&mdash;according to
+Mendel�eff's periodic law,&mdash;among some seven groups or families, the
+members of each group resembling one another in various particulars,
+wherein they differ from the rest? Or, to pass from atoms to molecules,
+(in which atoms of the same or<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_089" id="page_089">{89}</a></span> of different kinds combine, to build up
+simple or compound substances respectively,)&mdash;how is it that molecules
+of the same kind are always constructed upon exactly the same model,
+resembling one another far more closely than sovereigns struck from the
+same die, or different copies of this morning's <i>Times</i>? It was in this
+uniformity of type, character and behaviour, repeated always and
+everywhere, in instances multiplied "beyond the power of imagination to
+conceive," that Sir John Herschel<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> saw a feature stamping atoms and
+molecules as "manufactured articles, and subordinate agents," which, no
+less than a line of spinning-jennies, or a regiment of soldiers clad in
+the same uniform, and going through the same evolutions, imply a
+controlling force directing things according to a definite system.</p>
+
+<p>These and innumerable other particulars of detail has Science added to
+the problem: but of anything which can supply an answer, she knows no
+more than did the first man who ever mooted the question within his own
+soul.</p>
+
+<p>And if in the inorganic world we find food for such considerations, with
+immensely greater instance are they forced upon us by a study of the
+organic. Here we enter a new realm of mystery, for the laws we encounter
+actively energizing at every point, are altogether different from those
+with which hitherto we have had to deal. The matter which enters into
+the constitution of living things,&mdash;animals or<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_090" id="page_090">{90}</a></span> plants&mdash;is precisely the
+same as that of which the inorganic world is constituted. No single atom
+or molecule is found in the one which has not been drawn from the
+other;&mdash;nor when incorporated in a living structure do atoms or
+molecules suffer any alteration, or change their nature in any respect,
+for, says Clerk-Maxwell,<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> throughout all changes and catastrophes
+these remain "unbroken and unworn." Nevertheless, they fall at once
+under the spell of a force which introduces into their operations an
+order altogether new, for it somehow strikes across all the laws of dead
+matter, setting up a new code of its own, which endures just so long as
+life lasts, and is never met with apart from life. And these organic
+laws issue in marvellous results. Professor Haeckel himself, after
+endeavouring to show that from the inorganic world no arguments can be
+drawn to favour the supposition of design in Nature, thus
+continues:<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>But the idea of design has a very great significance and
+application in the <i>organic</i> world. We do undeniably perceive a
+purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant
+and animal seem to be controlled by a definite design in the
+combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in
+the machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life
+continues, the functions of the several organs are directed to
+definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a
+machine.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_091" id="page_091">{91}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>How Haeckel proceeds to argue that such appearance of purposive design
+is merely fallacious, we need not here stay to enquire; our present
+concern is to attempt to realize the evidence of law and order which the
+world everywhere exhibits. As we have just heard, the parts of an
+organism, like those of a motor-car, or a chronometer, combine their
+operations for the production of definite ends; the attainment of which
+depends in all instances upon the nicest correspondence of various
+details of their work. Thus, that there should be eyes capable of
+seeing, the laws of optics must be satisfied, reflection, refraction and
+the rest, just as exactly in the making of an eye as in that of a
+telescope. <i>De facto</i> they <i>are</i> satisfied. The eye, Mr. Darwin
+styles<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> "a living optical instrument as superior to one of glass as
+the works of the Creator<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> are to those of man." He speaks, moreover,
+of "all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
+distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
+correction of spherical and chromatic aberration."<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> Therefore,
+however we are to account for them, the laws which govern<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_092" id="page_092">{92}</a></span> the
+production of eyes successfully solve a practical problem and satisfy
+laws which were in force before an animal with eyes appeared on earth.</p>
+
+<p>In just the same way, the requirements of sound<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_093" id="page_093">{93}</a></span> are met by the
+structure of the ear, which Sir Henry Holland, for example,<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> judged
+more wonderful than that of the eye itself.</p>
+
+<p>So again as to wings. They are in the first place such marvellous pieces
+of workmanship that as Mr. Pettigrew writes concerning one of their
+forms.<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> "There are few things in nature more admirably constructed
+than the wing of a bird, and perhaps none where design can be more
+readily traced." But, moreover, wings entirely different in plan, as of
+birds, bats, and all the varieties of insects, alike satisfy the laws of
+aerostatics, and successfully solve in practice the problem of flight, a
+problem which we are unable to solve even theoretically. "It is
+evident," writes Lord Grimthorpe,<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> "that nobody yet thoroughly
+understands the whole theory of flying, though we are seeing it
+continually, and have unlimited opportunities of examining all sorts of
+wings. The explanation that appears plausible for one kind, not only
+will not do for another but seems refuted by it." Yet in a multitude of
+different ways, the forces of Nature succeed in effecting what with all
+our Science we cannot shew to be possible.</p>
+
+<p>And concerning not merely one portion of a creature's structure, but the
+whole, Professor Huxley declares:<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_094" id="page_094">{94}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the
+fact that it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect
+pieces of machinery in the living world. In truth, among the works
+of human ingenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive
+so perfectly adapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so
+small a quantity of fuel, as this machine of Nature's
+manufacture&mdash;the horse.</p></div>
+
+<p>These are but a few out of countless similar examples. "We are
+constantly discovering," says Lord Grimthorpe, "new complications and
+processes, and what to all common sense appear contrivances, in the
+organs of all living things, and indeed we can find no limit to them."
+In all these cases an instrument is fashioned precisely adapted to the
+performance of a certain function, and it is therefore obvious on first
+principles that there must exist <i>some</i> power capable of producing such
+instruments.</p>
+
+<p>It will probably be answered that there are forces enough in Nature to
+account for everything, and that these furnish the needful explanation.
+But, as Mr. Croll rightly insists,<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> Force by itself explains
+nothing. Its mere exercise has no tendency whatever to produce such
+effects. There must likewise be Determination of Force in the one
+definite direction required, and it is in the source of this
+Determination that the true cause must be sought to which the result is
+due. It is not simply because<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_095" id="page_095">{95}</a></span> iron is hammered and filed that a
+railway-engine is produced; nor is it sufficient that a block of marble
+be chipped with mallet and chisel in order to obtain a statue of Apollo.
+Unless some influence comes in to direct the forces in such cases to
+their respective results, the results will never by any possibility be
+secured. And in the processes of Nature such direction or determination
+must be exercised in particulars inconceivably intricate, to which the
+works of man furnish no parallel. As Mr. Croll writes:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If a tree is to be formed, the lines of least resistance must all
+be determined and adjusted in relation to the objective idea of the
+tree; of the root; of the branches; of the leaves; of the bud; of
+the fruit; and of every part of the tree. But this is not all: the
+tree is built up molecule by molecule, each of which requires a
+special determination, and, beyond all this, we have the
+structureless protoplasm, which must be differentiated according to
+the objective idea of the whole. What produces this marvellous
+adjustment of means to ends?</p></div>
+
+<p>And as he insists in another passage:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The determinations which take place in nature occur not at random,
+but according to a plan&mdash;an objective idea. Thus the question is
+not simply what causes a body to take some direction, but what
+causes it to take, among the infinite number of possible
+directions, the proper direction in relation to the idea. In the
+formation of, say, the leaf of a tree, no two molecules move in
+identically the same direction or take identically the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_096" id="page_096">{96}</a></span> same path.
+But each molecule must move in relation to the objective idea of
+the leaf, or no leaf would be formed. The grand question,
+therefore, is, What is it that selects from among the infinite
+number of possible directions the proper one in relation to this
+idea?</p></div>
+
+<p>And this sort of thing is going on in every blossom and leaf and blade
+of grass, in every hair and every feather over the surface of the earth.</p>
+
+<p>Truly does our author find here "The Grand Question," for in it we touch
+the very heart of our whole problem, and are forced to consider more
+closely than we have hitherto done of what character must be the
+ultimate Cause which alone can explain the world.</p>
+
+<p>It is, as we have seen, a first principle of Science, that in enquiries
+such as this, we must proceed from experience to inference, from the
+known to the unknown. Arguing thus, we may legitimately gather from
+observed phenomena, that something exists, which even though it be not
+directly within the range of our senses, must certainly be capable of
+producing such phenomena: just as the perturbations of one planet have
+revealed the existence of another; and the lines in their spectra have
+taught us the chemical constitution of the sun and stars.</p>
+
+<p>This principle being borrowed by Science from common-sense, has
+instinctively been ever adopted by those who set themselves to enquire
+of what kind must be that unseen Power at the back of Nature to which
+the fact of law and order may<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_097" id="page_097">{97}</a></span> be ascribed. And as there is but one
+force or power within the range of our experience capable of producing
+such an effect, it is but natural that this should have been constantly
+assumed to represent, at least by analogy, the nature of the power
+required. That there is but one cause known to us experimentally, which
+can determine the operation of force towards the attainment of a
+preconditioned result, none will deny&mdash;namely the purposive action of an
+intelligent will, as known to us in ourselves and in our
+fellow-men;&mdash;and to Will accordingly, immensely more intelligent than
+ours, has been ascribed the establishment of those laws which the
+highest intellects of our race are able partially and dimly to
+apprehend.</p>
+
+<p>It is thus that we are led to the fundamental doctrine of Theism, to
+belief in an intelligent First Cause, according to whose design the
+universe has been fashioned; a cause which must have all that is found
+in the universe or any part of it, including man, and more&mdash;for it has
+of itself what all else derives from it&mdash;whose purposes necessarily
+transcend our mental grasp&mdash;but whose modes of thought are reflected in
+our own, by which they can in some measure be followed through a study
+of their results.</p>
+
+<p>If such a belief, so grounded, be unscientific, as is constantly
+assumed, there must be good arguments to the contrary. It should be
+demonstrable, either that Science has shown such a line of reasoning to
+be unsound, or that she has discovered<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_098" id="page_098">{98}</a></span> within her own domain something
+which, at least conceivably, can do the work thus attributed to
+Intelligence&mdash;in which case the much-quoted dictum of Lord Kelvin will
+be in point,&mdash;that if a probable solution of any problem can be found
+which is consistent with the ordinary course of Nature, we must not go
+beyond Nature in search of one.</p>
+
+<p>If, on the other hand, the above line of reasoning cannot be
+invalidated, and if scientific methods can discover nothing competent to
+effect what has undoubtedly been effected, it is not easy to see how it
+can be unscientific to proceed by inference to what is confessedly
+beyond the scope of observation and experiment.</p>
+
+<p>That "Teleology," or the doctrine of Final Causality,<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> is unworthy
+of serious consideration, is without doubt a common assumption, and some
+writers seem to think that an argument is sufficiently discredited if it
+be styled "teleological." Yet this rather formidable term represents no
+more than the belief that the infinite adaptations of means to results
+observed in Nature are the effect of purpose, not of chance. And if we
+eliminate purpose, what is there left to furnish an explanation, beyond
+the indubitable fact that such adaptations have always been found in
+organic nature, and that we have learnt confidently to anticipate that
+they will<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_099" id="page_099">{99}</a></span> appear generation after generation according to the "law of
+heredity"? But this obviously only tells us that they have been produced
+and are likewise transmitted, and throws no light whatever on the cause
+of the marvellous processes to which their production and their
+transmission are due. If we have any rational grounds for expecting that
+such processes will continue to occur, it cannot be merely that they
+have occurred before, but we instinctively infer that the cause to which
+they are ultimately due continues to operate. We are thus as far as ever
+from an answer to the question, What is that cause?</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It may be urged [says Newman]<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> if a thing happens once it must
+happen always; for what is to hinder it? Nay, on the contrary, why,
+because one particle of matter has a certain property, should all
+particles have the same? Why, because particles have instanced the
+property a thousand times, should the thousand and first instance
+it also? It is <i>prima facie</i> unaccountable that an accident should
+happen twice, not to speak of it happening always. If we expect a
+thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an
+accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may
+bring it about twice. <i>What</i> is to hinder its happening? rather
+what is to make it happen? Here we are thrown back from the
+question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a
+fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then we have no
+experience of any cause but Will.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_100" id="page_100">{100}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Here is the crucial point: "We have no experience of any cause but
+Will;" and it follows that if, as Science bids us, we base inference on
+experience alone, there can be no doubt about the conclusion to which we
+shall be led.</p>
+
+<p class="top5">No different is the verdict of Sir John Herschel:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The presence of <i>Mind</i> [he writes]<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> is what solves the whole
+difficulty: so far, at least, as it brings it within the sphere of
+our consciousness, and into conformity with our own experience of
+what action is.</p></div>
+
+<p>That the introduction of intelligent purpose, as a factor, sufficiently
+meets the requirements of our reason cannot be denied. As Bishop Butler
+insists, it is even impossible for any man in his senses to say that the
+problem can be more easily solved without it. And witnesses not merely
+unfriendly, but positively and even bitterly hostile, are compelled to
+admit that on whatever other grounds they may reject Theism, it is not
+because this doctrine is inadequate as an explanation of the world we
+know.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It seems to me [says Professor Huxley]<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> that "creation," in the
+ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no
+difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe
+was not in existence; and that it made its appearance ... in
+consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_101" id="page_101">{101}</a></span> The
+so-called <i>� priori</i> arguments against Theism, and given a Deity,
+against the possibility of creative acts, appear to me to be devoid
+of reasonable foundation.</p></div>
+
+<p>Similarly, that uncompromising foe of religious belief in any shape,
+Professor W. K. Clifford, replying to Dr. Martineau who based his
+argument on the existence of the moral law, as well as the evidence of
+design in Nature, wrote thus:<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I fully admit that the theistic hypothesis, so grounded, and
+considered apart from objections elsewhere arising, is a reasonable
+hypothesis and an explanation of the facts. The idea of an external
+conscious being is unavoidably suggested, as it seems to me, by the
+categorical imperative of the moral sense; and moreover in a way
+quite independent, by the aspect of nature, which seems to answer
+to our questionings with an intelligence akin to our own.</p></div>
+
+<p>On the other hand, where is an alternative hypothesis to be found of
+which as much can be said,&mdash;which will justify itself to reason, by
+accounting for the facts? That no purely materialistic or mechanical
+theory will suffice is not only obvious to common-sense, but is
+acknowledged by those who would gladly find such a theory sufficient.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It would be a great delusion [writes Weismann]<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> if<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_102" id="page_102">{102}</a></span> any one
+were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the
+universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical
+principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal
+matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual
+need for causality.</p></div>
+
+<p>Similarly, Professor Huxley admits that even his primeval cosmic nebula
+with the world potential in its womb, leaves something to desire.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The more purely a mechanist the speculator is [he writes]<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> the
+more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of
+which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and
+the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,
+who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular
+arrangement was not<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> intended to evolve the phenomena of the
+universe.</p></div>
+
+<p>Accordingly, although he was clearly persuaded that Theism is a doctrine
+which we can never have sufficient grounds for accepting, Professor
+Huxley repudiated the notion that scientific discovery has done anything
+to disprove it. Thus he tells us,<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> that, in order to be a
+teleologist, and yet accept Evolution, it is only necessary<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_103" id="page_103">{103}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">to suppose that the original plan was sketched out ... that the
+purpose was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out of which
+the animals have come.</p></div>
+
+<p>And again,<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> he thus expressed himself regarding two objections
+commonly brought against Darwinism, namely that it introduces "chance"
+as a factor in nature, and that it is atheistic:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons believe in
+"chance"; and the philosophical difficulties of Theism now are
+neither greater nor less than they have been ever since Theism was
+invented.</p></div>
+
+<p>Accordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we
+are precisely where men have always been,&mdash;dependent upon arguments such
+as satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard
+the starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence
+must appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p>
+
+<p>That scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning,
+we have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose
+conclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found
+standing in the very front rank of Science.</p>
+
+<p>Like the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a
+Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from
+a study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a
+part of Natural Philosophy.<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_104" id="page_104">{104}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and
+Tait]<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and
+Upholder of all things.</p>
+
+<p>When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G.
+Stokes,]<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to
+be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But
+design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study
+then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a
+Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things
+that we behold.</p></div>
+
+<p>Lord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither
+affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms
+creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an
+article of belief.</p></div>
+
+<p>Thirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture
+before the British Association<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> thus spoke concerning Molecules:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and
+measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed
+on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in
+measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we
+reckon<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_105" id="page_105">{105}</a></span> among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they
+are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning
+created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of
+which heaven and earth consist.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science
+who altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false,
+or at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That,
+however, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced
+as if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be
+determined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is
+abundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which
+influences the great majority of those who style themselves
+rationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be
+established they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as
+they are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can
+pretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely
+exploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such
+statements, that our witnesses have been called&mdash;and for this purpose
+their testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his
+Presidential address told the British Association:<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_106" id="page_106">{106}</a></span>It is true that among scientific men, as in other classes, crude
+views are to be met with as to the deeper things of Nature; but
+that the life-long beliefs of Newton, of Faraday, and of Maxwell,
+are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind, is surely a
+proposition which I need not pause to refute.</p></div>
+
+<p>And when from authority we turn to the line of argument adopted by those
+who would impugn that upon which Theists rely, and who reject the idea
+of an intelligent First Cause either as superfluous, or as incapable of
+verification, we find but two courses one or other of which they feel
+themselves compelled to adopt, although it is not very easy to
+understand the state of mind which can rest satisfied with either.</p>
+
+<p>Some, on the one hand, frankly admit that Science has not by her own
+proper methods discovered any ultimate principle of things, and never
+will. But on that very account, they maintain, this ultimate principle,
+whatever it may be, must remain utterly unknown to us&mdash;for we can never
+<i>know</i> anything except by the methods of Science. Accordingly, although
+the theistic hypothesis would confessedly furnish such an explanation as
+is lacking, we must not adopt it because we cannot test it
+experimentally.</p>
+
+<p>And yet in ordinary life we have no difficulty in arguing from effect to
+cause in just the same manner, and satisfying ourselves of the existence
+of what we can as little touch or see as the First Cause itself. Thus we
+are convinced of the genius of Shakespeare<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_107" id="page_107">{107}</a></span> and Napoleon, and that there
+was a difference between the character of Robespierre and that of Howard
+the Philanthropist. But no man ever saw or touched either genius or
+character, which can be known only by their results. It is by inference
+far less legitimate that those proceed who, like Haeckel, seek in the
+forces of Nature themselves an explanation of phenomena which, as we
+know them, they are wholly incapable of producing. Instead of arguing
+that a cause must therefore exist which is beyond Nature, but whose
+character our own experience enables us in some measure, and
+analogically, to learn, these philosophers start with the assumption
+that no such cause is possible, and then proceed to draw the consequence
+that the condition of Nature must once have been totally different from
+what it actually is, enabling her forces to produce results which no
+experience of any sort indicates as possible.</p>
+
+<p>Those who adopt such an attitude of nescience, and in the proper sense
+of the word are termed Agnostics, find themselves compelled accordingly
+to leave their system in the air, with no basis more solid than the
+elephant and tortoise on which Hindoo astronomers rested the world. They
+must ignore the fundamental principle of Causation, from which we
+started our present enquiry, and in consequence it is impossible that
+their systems should, as Professor Weismann says, satisfy our
+intellectual needs.</p>
+
+<p>Others, on the other hand, declare that the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_108" id="page_108">{108}</a></span> Theistic hypothesis must be
+dismissed, because a better has been found, Science having discovered
+within her own sphere an effectual substitute for the supposed First
+Cause. When we enquire what this may be, we are told that it is the "Law
+of Substance," or "Evolution," or "Nature" herself, or an "Infinite
+Eternal Energy unknown and unknowable," but devoid of intellect and
+will&mdash;or "Monism," or some other similar abstraction which can represent
+no idea at all, unless&mdash;as often happens&mdash;it be clad in the robes of its
+rival, and credited with the very powers and attributes denied to the
+First Cause, so as to become practically the same thing under another
+and misleading name. Regarding this point there will be more to be said
+presently. Here, it will be sufficient to note that this is in truth the
+only meaning which can be attached to much of the language of so-called
+scientific writers.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Who [asks Mr. Wollaston]<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> is this Nature ... who has such
+tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
+performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes when
+dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent
+abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of
+an intelligent First Cause?</p></div>
+
+<p>So at the end of his life Clerk-Maxwell characteristically observed,
+that he had studied many queer<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_109" id="page_109">{109}</a></span> religions and philosophies, but had
+found none of them that would work without God concealed somewhere.</p>
+
+<p>Finally, a warning uttered by Lord Rayleigh in the address quoted above
+must not be forgotten. After acknowledging that "unfortunately" there
+are writers speaking in her name who have set themselves to foster the
+prevailing belief that Science necessarily tends towards materialism, he
+thus continued:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It would be easy, however, to lay too much stress upon the opinions
+of even such distinguished workers as these. Men who devote their
+lives to investigation cultivate a love of truth for its own sake,
+and endeavour instinctively to clear up, and not, as is too often
+the object in business and politics, to obscure, a difficult
+question. So far the opinion of a scientific worker may have a
+special value; but I do not think that he has a claim superior to
+that of other educated men, to assume the attitude of a prophet. In
+his heart he knows that underneath the theories that he constructs
+there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile. The higher
+mysteries of being, if penetrable at all by the human intellect,
+require other weapons than those of calculation and experiment.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_110" id="page_110">{110}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XII" id="XII"></a>XII</h3>
+
+<h4>PURPOSE AND CHANCE</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">A<small>N</small> objection is no doubt awaiting us which many consider absolutely
+fatal to the argument for purpose or design in nature, as above
+presented. That argument, it will be said, rests entirely upon the
+assumption that the sole alternative to Purpose is <i>Chance</i>, an
+assumption which, if not dishonest, betrays ignorance scarcely less
+discreditable: for men of science constantly warn us that there is no
+such thing as Chance,&mdash;that every occurrence in nature, one as much as
+another, testifies to the uniformity and regularity of natural
+causation,&mdash;and that if we speak of any phenomenon being due to Chance,
+this term is but a conventional symbol signifying that we do not know
+what caused it.</p>
+
+<p>Amongst those who take up this position, which is well-nigh universal,
+no better representative need be sought than Professor Huxley, who
+treated the point formally, and was manifestly well satisfied with his
+performance. We have already heard him declare belief in Chance to be an
+absurdity of which none but parsons could be guilty, a class in which he
+clearly conceived the low-water-mark of intelligence<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_111" id="page_111">{111}</a></span> to be reached. On
+another occasion,<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> he set himself expressly to the exposure of what
+he described as, "The most singular of the, perhaps immortal, fallacies,
+which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted
+them."</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Probably the best answer [he writes] to those who talk of Darwinism
+meaning the reign of "Chance," is to ask them what they themselves
+understand by "Chance." Do they believe that anything in this
+universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really
+conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been
+predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of
+Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique
+superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been
+illumined by a ray of scientific thought.</p></div>
+
+<p>As an object lesson for his enlightenment, the Professor bids one of
+these benighted folk betake himself to the sea-shore on which a heavy
+storm is breaking; and having painted a rather elaborate word-picture of
+the scene, he thus continues:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Surely here, if anywhere, he [the unenlightened one] will say that
+chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the
+very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that
+here as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not
+a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a
+rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_112" id="page_112">{112}</a></span>
+consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a
+sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent
+physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,
+every one of these "chance" events.</p></div>
+
+<p>This, however, is mere beating of the air, having no bearing whatever
+upon the question at issue; and we can only wonder that so able a man as
+Huxley could thus absolutely miss the whole point, while remaining
+serenely unconscious that he did so. No sane man ever entertained the
+foolish notion with which he credits his man of straw. On the contrary,
+it is precisely those whom he so heartily despises, that <i>dis</i>believe in
+Chance, and deny it any share in the making of the world. They neither
+regard Chance as a possible cause of phenomena, nor make of it a kind of
+deity or fetish, as some appear inclined to do with Science. Their
+contention is that according to those who, with Huxley, reject the idea
+of intelligent purpose, Chance would needs be introduced as a ruling
+element in nature, which would be absurd. Nor in thus arguing do they
+introduce any notion so irrational as that of "absolute" Chance, of
+events happening without causes. But unquestionably there can be
+"relative" Chance. A cause fully sufficient for the production of a
+result, may have no tendency whatever to determine or direct this result
+to a particular end; and if in such circumstances this end be attained
+it is by Chance. In particular, should many independent<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_113" id="page_113">{113}</a></span> results of
+purely mechanical forces combine to produce a result, as intelligence
+would combine them, its production can only be ascribed to Chance.
+"Chance" has therefore a very real meaning. It is not a Cause, but the
+absence of Cause: not of Cause altogether, but of the <i>determining</i>
+Cause requisite for the production of certain results. The argument
+based upon the impotence of Chance to obtain such results, is precisely
+that which the most exact of all the Sciences, Mathematics, accepts and
+applies in the Theory of Chances.</p>
+
+<p>The answer to the question which Professor Huxley evidently deems
+unanswerable is plain enough. By "Chance" is meant the concurrence,
+unguided by Purpose, of independent forces to produce a definite effect.
+"Chance" denotes the absence of Purpose, as "Vacuum" denotes the absence
+of air; and when it is denied that certain results can come about by
+chance, or fortuitously, it is as when we deny that life can be
+sustained <i>in vacuo</i>. It is no positive feature or action of the vacuum
+that we have in mind, for its essence is negative; but just because of
+that negative character, experience has taught us, that it cannot fulfil
+certain functions. In the same manner the potency of "Chance" is denied,
+simply because it is not Purpose.</p>
+
+<p>That there are phenomena for which "Chance" thus defined cannot account
+is, surely, obvious. If a man sits down at a piano and plays "God Save
+the King," no evidence in the world would persuade<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_114" id="page_114">{114}</a></span> Professor Huxley or
+any one else, that the performer had never before seen a musical
+instrument, nor knew of the existence of such an air or any other, but
+just put his fingers on the keys as the spirit moved him. Such a story
+would be rightly felt to be absolutely incredible: and yet the notes he
+produced&mdash;equally with those of the howling chorus of winds and
+waves&mdash;were the necessary effects of physical causes; given that
+particular strings were struck, they could not but follow. The whole
+point is, however, that in this case the result is <i>not</i> a howling
+chorus, but a melody; not mere formless noise, but an orderly
+composition, constructed on definite principles which our mind can
+recognize. It is in regard of this particular feature of the result that
+Force of itself, as we have seen, explains nothing, and that, if there
+is to be any explanation at all, we must know something as to how Force
+received the needful Direction or Determination.</p>
+
+<p>It is only in regard of human action that we can, as in the above
+instance, find an example of what may be called pure fortuity, for such
+action alone can be traced up to an initial cause, namely the exercise
+of Will. No one can have a right to call the action of natural forces
+fortuitous; on the contrary, we have seen arguments that in the
+inorganic world itself purpose must be recognized. But an action
+directed by purpose to one result may be quite fortuitous in regard of
+another. A man who digging a foundation for a house finds a buried
+treasure, discovers this by chance. Although his<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_115" id="page_115">{115}</a></span> action was ruled by a
+most definite purpose, that purpose was not this. So again when,
+according to the old story, certain Ph&oelig;nician mariners finding no
+stones on the sea-shore suitable for the purpose, used blocks of natron
+to support their cooking-pots, and so produced glass, they were led to
+the discovery by mere chance. And in like manner, however definitely the
+forces of matter may be determined each to its own proper end, there are
+results which if produced by them must be as purely fortuitous as such
+an invention made by men who thought only of preparing their dinner. The
+cable which was being laid to America having, in 1865, snapped and sunk
+in mid-Atlantic, it was determined in the following year to attempt its
+recovery. Meanwhile the shore-end at Valencia was still connected with
+the dial-plate, on which messages had been scored between ship and shore
+while the cable was intact. A telegraphist was constantly on duty,
+watching the needle which was never still, being deflected hither and
+thither by the earth-currents, working through the wires. On a sudden,
+however, the needle spelled out the letters "Got it," and it was known
+with absolute certainty that there was a man at the other end. It is no
+doubt perfectly true that each previous movement had been the necessary
+consequence of the force applied, just as truly as those which coincided
+with the conventions of the telegraphist's alphabet; but win any one say
+that such coincidence could conceivably be attributable to the forces of
+magnetism<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_116" id="page_116">{116}</a></span> alone, however exact to the laws according to which they
+operate?</p>
+
+<p>It must always be remembered that the question we have to discuss is,
+how far Science casts any light upon such questions as the one before
+us. And since "Science" is taken to mean knowledge acquired through the
+observation of phenomena alone, we have at present to enquire whether
+material forces, the only ones of which observation directly tells us
+anything, could have produced such effects as we have considered,
+otherwise than by mere "Chance"? If they could not, is it imaginable
+that they produced these effects at all? And it appears obvious that
+unless there be Purpose at the back of Nature, Chance must be
+acknowledged as the architect of the universe.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Huxley tells us, it is true, that such an idea could be
+entertained by no one whose mind had ever been illumined by a ray of
+scientific thought. In face of this it is rather remarkable to find that
+the idea was undoubtedly entertained by Mr. Darwin, who took for granted
+that to deny Purpose is to affirm Chance.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I am conscious [he wrote to Asa Gray]<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> that I am in an utterly
+hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is
+the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing
+as the result of Design.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_117" id="page_117">{117}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>And again:<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I cannot any how be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
+especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is
+the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as
+resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or
+bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this
+notion <i>at all</i> satisfies me.</p></div>
+
+<p>Professor Haeckel too is by no means in accord on this point with his
+friend Professor Huxley. He writes:<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>One group of philosophers affirms, in accordance with the
+teleological conception, that the whole cosmos is an orderly
+system, in which every phenomenon has its aim and purpose; there is
+no such thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical
+theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a
+monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose
+whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special
+result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the
+heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find
+any trace of a controlling purpose&mdash;all is the result of chance.
+Each party is right&mdash;according to its definition of chance. The
+general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of
+substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;
+in this sense there is no such<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_118" id="page_118">{118}</a></span> thing as chance. Yet it is not only
+lawful, but necessary to retain the term for the purpose of
+expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are
+not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own
+mechanical cause independent of the other. Everybody knows that
+chance, in this monistic sense, plays an important part in the life
+of man and in the universe at large. That, however, does not
+prevent us from recognizing in each "chance" event, as we do in the
+evolution of the entire cosmos, the universal sovereignty of
+nature's supreme law, <i>the law of substance</i>.</p></div>
+
+<p>There is a good deal here which is less clear in the way of argument
+than could be wished. The famous <i>Law of Substance</i>, as we have seen,
+has two articles: The indestructibility of matter, and the conservation
+of energy. What light either of these principles may be supposed to shed
+on such questions as the adaptation of organs to their functions is by
+no means obvious. To say that there is no design in the organic world,
+because it is a special result of biological agencies,&mdash;is quite of a
+piece with the contention which has actually been made, that we can no
+longer argue to Design, with Paley, from the analogy of a watch, since
+"nearly every part of a watch is now made by inanimate machinery."<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a>
+Thus much, however, is perfectly clear: the competence of Chance is
+recognized to originate a world like ours, and to enable Nature, as
+Professor Clifford says, seemingly<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_119" id="page_119">{119}</a></span> to answer our questionings with an
+intelligence akin to our own.</p>
+
+<p>It would thus appear that when Newton asks,&mdash;Was the eye fashioned
+without knowledge of the laws of light, or the ear, without knowledge of
+those of sound?&mdash;we are to answer in the affirmative, and to say that
+such organs are but special results of biological agencies, under the
+general management of the Law of Substance.</p>
+
+<p>That such a reply cannot with any truth be termed scientific is
+plain&mdash;for it touches matters which by her own acknowledgment Science
+cannot reach;&mdash;nor does it seem probable that this kind of talk would
+convince anybody, were there nothing more. Undoubtedly those who
+persuade themselves that the Order of the Universe can be sufficiently
+explained without introducing the idea of purpose or design, are
+influenced by other considerations than these.</p>
+
+<p>(1) With some it is the argument, which appears chiefly to have weighed
+with Mr. Darwin, who constantly speaks of it as the great obstacle to
+that belief in Design which the marvels of the universe would otherwise
+necessitate. This he based on certain features in Nature which appeared
+to him incompatible with the work of a beneficent Author, mainly the
+existence of suffering amongst animals in whose case it cannot be
+supposed to subserve any purpose of moral benefit. As he wrote to Asa
+Gray:<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_120" id="page_120">{120}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should
+wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.
+There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
+myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
+created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
+feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat
+should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in
+the belief that the eye was expressly designed.</p></div>
+
+<p>Such a mode of meeting the arguments for Design, though only indirect,
+undoubtedly deserves serious consideration, touching as it does the
+darkest of all mysteries&mdash;the Origin of Evil. It is clear, however, that
+in Mr. Darwin's case, and probably in that of many others, its effect
+was due in no slight degree to imagination rather than to reason. He
+picks out one or two instances of seeming cruelty in Nature, as though
+they were something exceptional, and appears to imply that they create
+an obstacle to a belief which Nature as a whole almost forces upon him.
+In reality, the same sort of thing goes on everywhere. Animal life from
+beginning to end is a record of rapine and slaughter, as Tennyson
+declared in a verse too trite to bear quotation. The most petted of pet
+dogs has no more compunction than a tiger in worrying creatures weaker
+than itself, and a robin-redbreast takes far more lives daily than does
+a sparrow-hawk. But to draw from these facts such large conclusions&mdash;is
+quite another matter. Can we imagine that we are qualified by<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_121" id="page_121">{121}</a></span> the
+fulness of our knowledge to pronounce judgment and declare that there
+can be no good end where we fail to perceive one? As Mr. Darwin admits
+in the very same passage: "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
+too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on
+the mind of Newton."</p>
+
+<p>How much is there in the actions of persons much lowlier than Newton
+which to the most intelligent of animals, dogs, elephants, or monkeys,
+could they speculate at all, must seem wholly devoid of sense;&mdash;as for
+instance that men should spend such continual labour in digging and
+ploughing. So again, in his famous lecture on Coal, Professor Huxley
+depicts what might have been the reflections of a giant reptile of the
+Carboniferous Epoch, suggested by the seemingly senseless waste of
+nature's powers in the production of the primeval forests, that have
+furnished the coal measures, to which so much of our progress and
+civilization is directly due.</p>
+
+<p>And, after all, given the universal law of death for all living things,
+it would hardly appear that we can assure ourselves that any attendant
+circumstance constitutes a greater evil&mdash;as Mr. Darwin's argument seems
+to assume; and yet, it does not appear ever to have been argued that
+there can be no purpose in Nature since no organic life endures for
+ever. Most probably, if we knew enough, we should plainly see that
+nothing could be more cruel than to have omitted the carnivora from
+creation, leaving herbivorous animals to multiply till they<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_122" id="page_122">{122}</a></span> starved one
+another to death, or at least to perish of senile decay far more
+painfully than under the fangs of tigers and wolves. Instances might
+moreover be quoted which serve to remind us how impossible it is rightly
+to estimate the true character of suffering amongst creatures altogether
+different from ourselves. Thus when, as eye-witnesses report, young
+scorpions clinging to their mother devour her alive, scientifically
+avoiding as long as possible all vital parts and mortal wounds&mdash;we are
+inclined to consider them monsters of wickedness, and their parent as a
+model of motherly devotion, whose sufferings cannot be less horrible
+than those of a caterpillar similarly eaten by the ichneumon grub. But
+we cannot with any reason impute more moral blame to the young
+scorpions, than to the lambkins which draw sustenance from their dams in
+another fashion which we find touching and poetical; while as for the
+mother&mdash;who doubtless treated her own parent in just the same
+fashion&mdash;she exhibits no symptom to show that she resents her
+offsprings' advances, any more than does the ewe, but on the contrary
+has her sting ever ready for any one who would interfere with them.</p>
+
+<p>(2) It is a still more common objection to the doctrine of purpose
+everywhere in Nature, that such an idea is negatived by the continuity
+and uniformity of natural laws, precluding the notion of constant
+interference by another, supernatural, Agent. But this objection is
+based upon an entire misconception. No one imagines such intervention,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_123" id="page_123">{123}</a></span>
+or that purpose guides nature as a pilot guides a ship by repeated
+orders to the man at the wheel. Undoubtedly the reign of law in nature
+is uninterrupted, but in that law purpose is interwoven as the
+controlling element; just as the mind of Homer governs the hand of every
+printer who sets up type for a new edition of the <i>Iliad</i>.</p>
+
+<p>(3) Finally, there is the argument, already alluded to, that inasmuch as
+the most complex structures are daily transmitted under our eyes by
+generation, we have evidence that nature can produce them from her own
+resources, and by the operation of a merely natural law, such as no one
+doubts generation to be.</p>
+
+<p>Such an argument, it is evident, merely begs the question at issue,
+offering as it does no explanation, or suggestion, as to how a power so
+marvellous was acquired. It would be equally philosophical to argue that
+there is nothing wonderful about the genius of a great poet because we
+confidently anticipate that it will be exhibited in the next piece he
+produces.</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise clear that, here again, imagination rather than reason
+furnishes the argument. In the first place, were there nothing else, no
+explanation whatever would thus be afforded as to how the structures in
+question were first produced, before they could be transmitted. And,
+secondly, which is still more important, generation&mdash;far from furnishing
+an explanation of anything&mdash;introduces us to mysteries yet more
+inscrutable than any we have yet encountered,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_124" id="page_124">{124}</a></span> and to problems which
+seem to admit of no possible solution apart from, not only Purpose, but
+transcendent Power.</p>
+
+<p>Doubtless the propagation of life is ruled by natural law, but how such
+law effects its object we understand immeasurably less than we
+understand the flight of birds or butterflies. As a recent writer
+reminds us,<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> what is transmitted from parents to offspring "is not a
+new form or structure, but only the <i>potentiality</i> of such a new form:
+which, in suitable circumstances, builds <i>itself</i> up out of surrounding
+inorganic and organic material." As Lord Grimthorpe expresses the same
+truth:<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If we suppose an apple-tree to have once grown somehow, and to have
+somehow got power to produce seeds, that would not produce any more
+apple-trees, unless the seeds, and all the adjacent atoms that are
+wanted, had the power and the will to combine and grow into another
+apple-tree. The first hen that laid an egg performed a wonderful
+feat enough, but it would have done no good unless the atoms of the
+egg also knew and resolved what to do to turn themselves into a
+chicken. Yet spontaneous evolutionists are in the habit of slurring
+over generation as a thing too "natural," and therefore too easy
+and simple to require explanation.</p></div>
+
+<p>The continual operation of a law such as this, certainly does not remove
+mysteries, nor make it more easy to understand how the order and the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_125" id="page_125">{125}</a></span>
+marvels of the universe can rationally be attributed to Chance rather
+than to Design, according to "this new philosophy of effects without
+causes and laws without a lawgiver."<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> For "fortuitous" means, as
+Professor Case has well observed,<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> not the accidental, as opposed to
+the regular laws of nature, but the spontaneous necessity of nature, as
+opposed to the voluntary designs of intelligence. Nor is it only in the
+organic world that we find the need of such a factor to explain
+phenomena; for it is throughout more essential than any other force to
+account for Nature as we find her&mdash;in such a manner as to satisfy the
+logical demands of our mind. We learn as little from observation and
+experiment as to the fundamental laws of matter,&mdash;gravitation, for
+instance, which Faraday and Herschel termed "the mystery of mysteries,"
+or chemical affinities, or the nature of Ether&mdash;as concerning anything
+in organic nature; though in the latter we undoubtedly mount to a higher
+plane of mysteriousness. And in either case we could learn nothing
+whatever,&mdash;that is to say, Science would be wholly impossible,&mdash;did we
+not find natural phenomena respond to our enquiries with what seems an
+intelligence akin to our own. And accordingly it appears but
+reasonable,&mdash;that is to say, truly scientific,&mdash;to exclaim as did even
+Diderot&mdash;"Quoi! le monde form� prouverait moins une intelligence que le
+monde expliqu�!"<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_126" id="page_126">{126}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XIII" id="XIII"></a>XIII</h3>
+
+<h4>MONISM</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">A<small>LL</small> systems of philosophy that reject the idea of an intelligent First
+Cause, which alone is self-existent, and whose being is of a higher
+order than that of aught else,&mdash;base their denial on the assumption that
+no such distinction of nature either exists or is possible,&mdash;that there
+is but one reality, namely the substance whereof the sensible world
+consists,&mdash;that this has always existed with the same forces it has now,
+and that it is the source of all phenomena. This assumption of the
+unreality of whatever is beyond the scope of sense, which has ever been
+at the bottom of materialistic systems, is now elaborately formulated as
+a creed, declared by Professor Haeckel and his following to be the only
+creed which science can tolerate. This is termed <i>Monism</i>,&mdash;from the
+Greek <span title="Greek: M�nos">&#924;&#8001;&#957;&#959;&#962;</span>, "single," and is opposed to <i>Dualism</i>, or the
+doctrine that there are two orders of being, or two distinct substances,
+material and spiritual.<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_127" id="page_127">{127}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>According to monistic teaching, therefore, there exists but one <i>Thing</i>,
+that which we usually call Matter, but might equally well call
+Mind,&mdash;for all phenomena whatever, whether mental or material, are but
+various shapes which it assumes, exhibiting diverse aspects of itself.
+Thus all the objects which appear to have a being of their own,&mdash;as the
+globe we inhabit, the furniture of earth and heaven, we ourselves,&mdash;are
+but the forms momentarily assumed by this protean entity in its
+ceaseless transfigurations, and have no more existence of their own than
+the ripples on a pool of water or the faces we see in the fire. It
+follows that when the particular phase of this basic substance is ended
+which brings us into being, (or rather which we <i>are</i>,) we like
+everything else, sink into blank nothing,&mdash;so that the mighty dead whom
+nations honour, or the loved ones whose memory we cherish, are blotted
+out of existence as utterly as the days and nights which made up the
+span of their lives. But amongst its permutations and combinations this
+solitary reality can produce the phenomena which we call thought, just
+as much as those which we call motion, and accordingly the <i>Aeneid</i> or
+<i>Hamlet</i> is its work, a mechanical product of evolution, no less than a
+seam of coal, or an eclipse of the moon.</p>
+
+<p>Such, in outline, is the philosophical system which commends itself, as
+Professor Haeckel assures us,<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> to all men of science, who combine<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_128" id="page_128">{128}</a></span>
+the necessary conditions, of scientific knowledge, mental acumen, moral
+courage, and intellectual independence. It may be rightly described as
+materialistic pantheism; for while, according to it, everything is
+equally divine, in the only sense in which anything can be so,
+everything is likewise equally material, as falling under the category
+of what we know as matter, and within the direct cognizance of physical
+science.</p>
+
+<p>Accurately to sketch a doctrine such as this is a task of no slight
+difficulty. It undoubtedly contradicts the instinctive teaching of our
+consciousness, so that, as Professor Haeckel admits<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> in the
+primitive stages of both religion and philosophy Monism is unknown.
+Moreover, even those who most loudly profess it, have by no means as yet
+succeeded in realizing their own system, and after having from time to
+time formally enunciated its articles, proceed forthwith to ignore them,
+and in the staple of their discourse speak like other men in terms which
+have no meaning if the tenets of their creed have any. As a natural
+result their exposition of monistic doctrine is not very easy of
+apprehension, but it seems to be not unfairly reflected in the above
+summary.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Haeckel himself thus expounds "that unifying conception of
+nature as a whole which we designate in a single word as Monism."<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>By this we unambiguously express our conviction that<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_129" id="page_129">{129}</a></span> there lives
+"one spirit in all things," and that the whole cognizable world is
+constituted, and has been developed, in accordance with one common
+fundamental law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential
+unity of inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been
+evolved from the former only at a comparatively late period. We
+cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between these two great
+divisions of nature, any more than we can recognize an absolute
+distinction between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, or
+between the lower animals and man. Similarly, we regard the whole
+of human knowledge as a structural unity; in this sphere we refuse
+to accept the distinction usually drawn between the natural and the
+spiritual. The latter is only a part of the former (or <i>vice
+vers�</i>); both are one. Our monistic view of the world belongs,
+therefore, to that group of philosophical systems which from other
+points of view have been designated also as mechanical or as
+pantheistic.</p></div>
+
+<p>More concisely and clearly, Professor Romanes tells us:<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Mental phenomena and physical phenomena, although apparently
+diverse, are really identical.</p></div>
+
+<p>And in a work recently issued for the express purpose of expounding and
+diffusing the new gospel, we read:<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Just as the same particles of matter may at one time form parts of
+a rose, and at another time parts<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_130" id="page_130">{130}</a></span> of a mushroom, so the same force
+may at one time strike a church as lightning, and at another time
+may be the mother-love that rocks the cradle.</p></div>
+
+<p>If such conceptions are not easy to grasp, there can be no doubt as to
+the practical conclusions to which they lead. We have already heard from
+Professor Haeckel that human freedom is an utter delusion. We have
+likewise seen that the only term in prospect is utter annihilation,
+which Professor Haeckel endeavours to persuade us is the consummation we
+ought to wish.</p>
+
+<p>"The best we can desire," he says,<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> "after a courageous life, spent
+in doing good according to our light, is the eternal peace of the grave.
+'Lord give them an eternal rest.'"</p>
+
+<p>It is evident however that in order to secure such a reward it is not
+necessary to show any courage, or attempt any sort of good-work, for
+according to him it equally awaits the most selfish and abandoned
+voluptuary.</p>
+
+<p>Finally,<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>At our death there disappears only the individual form in which the
+nerve-substance was fashioned, and the personal "soul" which
+represented the work performed by this. The complicated chemical
+combinations of that nervous mass pass over into other
+combinations&mdash;by decomposition, and the kinetic energy produced by
+them is transformed into other forms of nature.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_131" id="page_131">{131}</a></span></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td align="left">Imperial C�sar, dead and turned to clay,</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left">Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.&mdash;</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="ast">* * * * *</p>
+</div>
+
+<p class="nind">which lines others besides Haeckel are fond of quoting on this subject
+as if they had any possible connexion with it. It would be more to the
+point, and far more interesting, were some indication afforded of the
+chemical equivalent of the qualities which made C�sar imperial, or those
+which distinguished the author of the above lines from the bards of our
+Music Halls. That, when a man is no more, his material part may serve
+various material purposes, is no more than was known to the first savage
+who made a drum with his enemy's skin, or used his skull for a
+drinking-cup.</p>
+
+<p>As has been said, the Monistic philosophy claims to be above all things
+scientific, and upon this ground are we bidden to accept it. But what is
+the meaning of this claim? The one argument, apart from mere assertion,
+brought to show that spirit is not distinct from matter, is drawn from
+the part undoubtedly played by the brain in the process of thought,
+though we see far less in this, as in other connexions, than the
+assertions made by unscientific writers might lead us to imagine. But
+when all this is most fully acknowledged can it be said that the state
+of the question is changed from what it was? To listen to Monists, it
+might be supposed that the intimate connexion<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_132" id="page_132">{132}</a></span> between soul and body is
+a new discovery, undreamt of in former ages,&mdash;and that we have now
+arrived at a demonstration that it is our material part that actually
+does our thinking. But, as a matter of fact, like other fundamental
+questions, this is exactly as it has ever been, and so far as Science is
+concerned, we are just as much in the dark respecting it as men ever
+were. Though the philosophers of former days were unaware of all the
+departmental details of brain activity, they understood as well as we do
+the essential point, that in our composite nature soul and body form
+<i>one</i> being, whose every operation is of mixed character like itself.
+The soul alone is the intelligent principle, yet all objects of
+knowledge must come to it through sense, and in the senses it can be
+reached only by the mechanical media of light, or sound, or touch. So
+firm was their grip of this principle that the Schoolmen styled the soul
+the "substantial form" of the body, and in their mouth this term
+expressed a union more essential and intimate than modern philosophers
+can perhaps imagine.</p>
+
+<p>And, on the other hand, have all the results of modern research brought
+anything to light which tends to show that matter can by any possibility
+<i>think</i>? We are assured on the contrary, upon unimpeachable authority,
+that however we may succeed in tracing the mechanical processes of
+sensation to their furthest limit, it remains absolutely inconceivable
+to us how the gulf is crossed<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_133" id="page_133">{133}</a></span> that lies between this and rational
+perception. So Professor Tyndall tells us:<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding
+facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite
+thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur
+simultaneously, we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor
+apparently any rudiments of an organ, which would enable us to pass
+by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear
+together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so
+expanded as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the
+brain, were we capable of following all their motions, all their
+groupings and electrical discharges, if such there be, and were we
+intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and
+feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the
+problem&mdash;"How are these physical processes connected with the facts
+of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes remains still
+intellectually impassable.</p></div>
+
+<p>With these views Professor Huxley<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> expresses his agreement, and
+although he contrives to confuse the issue very considerably, as is not
+unusual when he undertakes to philosophize, he lays down in the clearest
+possible terms that nothing whatever is <i>known</i> as to the connexion of
+mechanical processes with thought, whence it follows that on this point
+Science has nothing to tell us.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_134" id="page_134">{134}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>"I really know nothing whatever [he writes] and never hope to know
+anything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to
+states of consciousness is effected."</p>
+
+<p>It should be needless to repeat that if nothing is known regarding all
+this, it is mere charlatanism to pretend that Science tells us anything
+about it, and those who make such assertions use words to which no
+meaning can attach. Unfortunately such a practice is far from uncommon
+in connexion with these questions. What sense can there be conceivable
+in the well-known materialistic doctrine that the brain secretes
+thought, just as the proper organs secrete bile or saliva? Bile and
+saliva are material substances, with a definite chemical constitution,
+each adapted to one definite function. But, Thought! It would be as
+intelligible to talk of secreting the British Constitution, the Steam
+Engine, and the Differential Calculus.</p>
+
+<p>So much for the sole basis of Monistic argument. When we turn to some
+other considerations it certainly becomes no easier to understand the
+claim of Monism to be scientific. In the first place, as we have seen,
+in order to furnish the system with any semblance of truth, it has been
+found necessary to attribute to the ultimate elements of matter
+qualities which all our experience denies them; for Professor Haeckel
+has told us that "the two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable
+matter and ether, are not dead, and only moved by extrinsic force, but
+they are endowed<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_135" id="page_135">{135}</a></span> with sensation and will." Of such attributes, and that
+of self-mobility, it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been
+said already. Assuredly nothing can look less like the great ultimate
+reality, of whose ceaseless metamorphoses, we are but a flitting phase,
+than the material substances with which we can do what we like,
+investigating their laws, exploring their constitution, and setting them
+tasks which we know exactly how they will accomplish.</p>
+
+<p>Another point in the same connexion is no less important. What is this
+one <i>Thing</i>, this Ultimate and Solitary Self-existent Reality, from
+which Monism takes its title? Professor Haeckel has told us of two
+fundamental forms of substance,&mdash;ponderable matter and ether. These he
+evidently supposes, as his creed requires, to be radically the same: but
+what right has he to take such a supposition for a fact? and unless this
+unity be a fact, what becomes of Monism? What has Science ever
+discovered that can justify any one in speaking of Ether and Matter as
+one and the same? How, then, can a theory that assumes their identity be
+termed "scientific?"</p>
+
+<p>Or, leaving Ether alone, "that half-discovered entity," as Lord
+Salisbury styled it on a famous occasion, and restricting our attention
+to ponderable matter, concerning which we know a little more,&mdash;how can
+even this be spoken of as "One"? As we have seen already it is only by a
+figure of speech that the term "Matter" can be used at all.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_136" id="page_136">{136}</a></span> It stands
+not for a single thing, but for countless millions and billions of
+atoms, dispersed through space, some of one kind some of another, no one
+of which can be imagined to owe its existence or its properties to any
+other. To say that matter is self-existent is to say that every several
+atom is self-existent. If this be so, and if this be the ultimate
+Reality,&mdash;then there are as many first principles, or first causes, as
+there are atoms. Yet none of these could do anything to the purpose
+towards the evolution of anything, without the concurrence of a
+multitude of others, nor would such concurrence be possible but for the
+reign of law, which none of them can have instituted, but to which all
+alike are subject. Were matter the great reality, even matter composed
+of "animated atoms," the term <i>Monism</i> would be sadly out of keeping,
+and should yield its place to <i>Myriadism</i>. If, on the other hand, there
+<i>is</i> a unifying principle amid such diversity, this it must be which can
+control and direct all to one end.</p>
+
+<p>It is undoubtedly hard to understand how the First Principle of all
+things can be supposed to consist of Atoms, but this is one of the
+perplexities in which monistic doctrines abound. That atoms <i>are</i>, so
+far as we know, the ultimate constituents of the Fundamental Reality,
+Professor Haeckel admits. It is true, he adds, that our knowledge of
+these ultimate elements is still far from satisfying, and he likewise
+anticipates that atoms will someday be discovered not really to be
+ultimate, but forms of something, more primal still.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_137" id="page_137">{137}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Although [he says]<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> Monism is on the one hand for us an
+indispensable and fundamental conception in science, and although,
+on the other hand, it strives to carry back all phenomena, without
+exception, to the mechanism of the atom, we must nevertheless still
+admit that as yet we are by no means in a position to form any
+satisfactory conception of the exact nature of these atoms, and
+their relation to the general space-filling, universal ether.
+Chemistry long ago succeeded in reducing all the various natural
+substances to combinations of a relatively small number of
+elements; and the most recent advances of that science have made it
+in the highest degree probable that these elements ... are
+themselves in turn only different combinations of a varying number
+of atoms of one single original element. But in all this we have
+not as yet obtained any further light as to the real nature of
+these original atoms or their primal energies.</p></div>
+
+<p>From which it is clear, that, while the considerations above presented
+lose none of their force, the Monistic system, by the avowal of its
+chief apostle, is based on complete ignorance concerning all which could
+furnish it with a foundation.</p>
+
+<p>But by far the most serious consideration yet remains. If, according to
+Monistic teaching men are but bubbles on the surface of reality, and are
+inevitably carried as it wills,&mdash;there is an end of all distinction
+between good and evil, right and wrong, merit and guilt. One man, or one
+line of conduct, is as good, or as bad, as another, being all equally<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_138" id="page_138">{138}</a></span>
+the products of Evolution, and aspects of the great Monistic
+principle;&mdash;"Jack the Ripper," and Socrates, Messalina and Queen
+Victoria, Chief Justice Scroggs and Sir Thomas More, are none of them in
+any possible sense one whit better or worse than the others,&mdash;inasmuch
+as they all did but act as puppets actuated by one and the same
+original, playing its own part in them all.</p>
+
+<p>And in like manner as regards Truth. It must follow that a man's
+beliefs, like his actions, are as much beyond his own control as his
+stature or the colour of his hair. If Professor Haeckel calls Monism
+supreme wisdom, and I call it nonsense, we are equally right, for each
+is the mouthpiece of the same one all-embracing first-principle. What
+each believes is the only thing possible for him to believe, and, so far
+as he is concerned, is the only truth.</p>
+
+<p>But here comes in a perplexity. If such be the case, if there be no
+Free-will, and no possibility whatever of doing or believing anything
+but what is predetermined for us as a necessary part of our
+being,&mdash;where is the sense of all the strenuous efforts that are being
+made to convert the people to a belief which, according to its own
+principles, nothing in the world can make them accept, unless nothing in
+the world can prevent them from accepting it? What again is the meaning
+of organizations, such as we hear of, for giving ethical instruction to
+the young on a Monistic and determinist basis? What can be the possible
+sense of giving ethical lectures<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_139" id="page_139">{139}</a></span> to young people, if it is really
+believed that the course of each is marked out for him more rigorously
+than the path of a city omnibus? "If" said Professor Paul Darnley in Mr.
+Mallock's clever satire,&mdash;"If we would be solemn, and high, and happy,
+and heroic, and saintly, we have but to strive and struggle to do what
+we cannot for an instant avoid doing,"&mdash;namely, conform to the laws of
+matter. If Monists were to limit their aspirations to this, their
+teaching would at least be intelligible. It ceases to be so, when they
+feel compelled to graft on their Monistic stock the Dualistic notions of
+Right and Wrong, Truth and Error. But, as Dr. Johnson said respecting
+Free-will, no one ever believes the arguments on the other side, however
+loudly he may profess to do so. And in the same way it is quite clear
+that no Monist can get himself really to accept Monism.<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_140" id="page_140">{140}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XIV" id="XIV"></a>XIV</h3>
+
+<h4>ORGANIC EVOLUTION</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">W<small>E</small> have now considered the question of Evolution in the larger and more
+fundamental signification of the term to which, as we noted at starting,
+very different meanings are attached; and at this stage of our
+discussion it will be convenient to sum up the main conclusions at which
+we have arrived.</p>
+
+<p>It is, in the first place, unwarrantable to pretend that the discoveries
+of modern Science, brilliant and marvellous as they undoubtedly are,
+have thrown any light upon the origin of the Material Universe, or of
+its forces, or of the laws according to which its operations proceed.
+Nor has Science anything to tell as to the origin of life, of sensation,
+or of reason. Nothing as yet discovered by her, or which she can discern
+any prospect of discovering, adds aught to our knowledge regarding such
+points as these.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, to say that the doctrine of Evolution as affirmed by Science,
+explains the existence of the world we know, is untrue and unscientific.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover, we have seen that, as a factor without which the Order of
+Nature is unintelligible, the First<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_141" id="page_141">{141}</a></span> Cause to which her existence is
+owing must be possessed of Intelligence, determining her processes
+according to its purposes. Hence it follows that no system of philosophy
+satisfies our reason which would find the ultimate explanation of all
+things in the forces of matter themselves which it is the province of
+Science to investigate.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, in maintaining that Purpose must needs have acted, we
+do not assume to pronounce as to the manner of its action. To say that
+Purpose rules every detail in the making or development of the universe,
+does not by any means signify that it interferes at every step with the
+laws of Nature. Rather, these laws are the expression of Purpose,&mdash;its
+machinery to secure its designed result. Assuming, for instance, the
+primeval existence of Professor Huxley's cosmic nebula, so constituted
+that the actual world was bound naturally to issue from it, as does a
+chicken from an egg, or an oak from an acorn,&mdash;while we find it
+inconceivable that such a piece of mechanism should originate without an
+intelligence to design it,&mdash;we have no difficulty in supposing that
+intelligence to have exhibited itself once for all at the first
+beginning, and to have fashioned the actual world by shaping the causes
+or conditions by which it was to be produced, thus making everything,
+not directly and immediately but as St. Augustine held "<i>causaliter et
+seminaliter</i>."</p>
+
+<p class="top5">There remains for consideration Evolution in its<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_142" id="page_142">{142}</a></span> narrower sense, in
+which its operations are restricted to organic nature, such Evolution
+being commonly, but incorrectly, identified with "Darwinism." Understood
+thus, "Evolution" signifies no more than that the various species of
+animals and plants have descended <i>genetically</i> one from another,
+through a graduated series of intermediate forms which link them
+together. <i>Darwinism</i> is one particular mode of explaining how such
+transformations may be accounted for,&mdash;namely, by what is known as
+"Natural Selection." The theory of Evolution, as thus concerned with
+Organic life in particular, is compendiously described as
+"Transformism," under which head Darwinism is evidently included.</p>
+
+<p>Transformism makes no pretence to account for the origin of life,
+whether animal or vegetable. Living things must exist before any
+question arises as to their transmutation. But, given the existence of
+life, Transformists undertake in the first place to show that Organic
+Evolution has, as a matter of fact, occurred, and is still in process of
+occurrence; and secondly, to exhibit the manner in which this process is
+actually worked out. As to the first point, all Transformists, whether
+Darwinians or others, are necessarily at one, for the fact of Evolution
+is equally essential for every explanation of its method. It is when
+they come to explain in what manner evolutionary transformations have
+been wrought that Transformists divide themselves into various schools,
+each of which relies upon some particular factor to furnish the required
+explanation.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_143" id="page_143">{143}</a></span> Thus besides Darwinians pure and simple, there are
+neo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, neo-Lamarckians, Weismannists, and others,
+ascribing the results to physiological selection, sexual-selection, or
+other forces, rather than natural selection. Of such systems, however,
+excepting only Darwinism, it will be unnecessary to speak in particular.
+The great fundamental question is whether genetic Evolution be really
+established as a fact,&mdash;which, as has been said, equally affects them
+all&mdash;and if it be advisable to treat more in detail of Darwinism, it is
+not because this does not hold good of it as of the rest&mdash;but because
+this particular system has obtained such a position, is so much in the
+mouths of men, and has been made the basis of so many and such
+far-reaching consequences, that it is impossible to pass it by.</p>
+
+<p>Much the same may indeed be said even of the assumed fact of Organic
+Evolution underlying all Transformist theories. This does not affect the
+fundamental problems with which we are concerned, and leaving untouched,
+as it does, the question of the origin of Life it makes even less
+pretence than the cosmic-nebular hypothesis just spoken of to trace the
+operations of Nature to their ultimate source. It might therefore appear
+superfluous to devote to it so much attention as, if treated at all, it
+must needs demand.</p>
+
+<p>But, whatever may thus appear from the point of view of strict logic, it
+is abundantly evident that in common estimation the assumed fact of
+Organic transformation is the foundation-stone of Evolutionary<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_144" id="page_144">{144}</a></span> systems
+of every kind. And not unnaturally; for here at last we have something
+with which Science can deal, strictly according to her own methods. If
+she knows, and can know, nothing from actual observation concerning the
+first beginnings of matter, of the cosmic nebula, or of life, it is
+quite otherwise with the history of living things since they first
+appeared, and with the phenomena of life as it exists and is propagated.
+Here are questions which are strictly scientific, forming the
+subject-matter of Pal�ontology and Biology, and these Sciences
+supplemented by others, such as Geology, Physical Geography, and
+Astronomy, furnish a mass of evidence bearing upon the subject of
+Organic Evolution. When therefore the great majority of men of Science,
+declare that the fact of genetic Transformism is established beyond the
+possibility of doubt, Evolutionists find themselves supplied with a
+plausible foothold on which to stand and rest their fulcrum, while, like
+Archimedes, they proceed to move the world.</p>
+
+<p>That men of Science generally thus agree, cannot be questioned, and
+although this agreement is by no means so universal as is popularly
+supposed, there is no doubt that were the question to be settled by
+enumeration of the authorities on either side, Transformism would win
+easily. It may also be freely acknowledged, that Transformism in general
+and Darwinism in particular are theories to which on <i>� priori</i> grounds
+no exception need be taken, and that, so far at least as concerns their
+general scope,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_145" id="page_145">{145}</a></span> apart from the origin of Man, no one can reasonably
+start with a prepossession against them. Nay, we will go farther, and
+say that to our way of thinking it appears immensely more probable, that
+things should always have gone on as they go on now, by the operation of
+the same natural laws, and that specific forms should have been
+naturally produced, as individuals of a species are produced now, by
+generation,&mdash;rather than that not only repeated acts of specific
+creation, but any operations totally different from those we witness,
+should have occurred to interrupt, and as we should judge, to mar, the
+Law of Continuity.</p>
+
+<p>All this is true. But we are engaged on a scientific enquiry,&mdash;and if
+there be one principle more than another upon which Science insists, it
+is that we should prove all things, not by authority, but by
+evidence,&mdash;and that we should seek evidence, not in pre-conceived ideas
+as to what should be, but in observation of what is. Accordingly, while
+we are most ready to accept Transformism or Darwinism should we find
+solid reasons for doing so, we are bound, for the sake of Science, to
+demand unimpeachable proofs before subscribing to doctrines which are
+made responsible for so much.</p>
+
+<p class="top5">Before proceeding farther it will be necessary to exhibit more in detail
+the exact character of the question we have to discuss.</p>
+
+<p>According to the celebrated "Formula" of Mr. Herbert Spencer&mdash;"Evolution
+is an integration<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_146" id="page_146">{146}</a></span> of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;
+during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent
+homogeneity, to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and
+during which the contained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."
+It would be interesting to know what idea this definition conveys to
+many of those who are in the habit of quoting it, but, so far as organic
+Evolution is concerned, it must mean that whereas in the earlier and
+lower forms of life one organ performed many different functions in an
+imperfect manner, evolutionary development has gradually produced higher
+forms, in which each function has its special organ, by which it is more
+perfectly discharged. As an extreme instance of the former condition,
+the Hydra has but two organs, an outside which respires, and an inside
+which digests. If it be turned inside out these functions are reversed;
+the skin becoming the stomach, and the stomach the skin. Thus Evolution
+has been an ascending process from the lower to the higher, from the
+less to the more organized.</p>
+
+<p>Such, it must be added, has undoubtedly been the course of life. Amongst
+plants and animals alike, it began with lower and simpler forms, after
+which succeeded in due order others more developed and elaborately
+organized, the order in which they came upon the scene being much the
+same as that in which we should naturally arrange their specimens in a
+museum. Thus in the vegetable kingdom, first came such growths as
+sea-weeds and fungi, followed<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_147" id="page_147">{147}</a></span> by ferns and club-mosses,&mdash;yews and
+pines,&mdash;and so through grasses, canes, and palms, to the highest group
+in which are included our forest trees and the bulk of our garden
+flowers. In like manner, the animal series,&mdash;to mention only leading
+groups of which evidence is found,&mdash;starting with almost structureless
+<i>Protozoa</i>, followed by such forms as starfish and sponges, worms,
+molluscs and crustaceans, has advanced to vertebrate creatures&mdash;fishes,
+amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,&mdash;and finally to man.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, in a quite intelligible sense, there has certainly been Evolution,
+or development,&mdash;that is to say, an orderly progression from lower types
+to higher, throughout the history of life on earth, from its
+commencement to the present time. But, this is not the point. Was such
+Evolution or development <i>genetic</i>? Was it wrought by descent with
+modification of form from form? <i>That</i> is what we have to enquire. If
+this has not been so, there has been no Evolution in the sense intended
+by Evolutionists.</p>
+
+<p>According to their highest authority, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Evolution
+means "the production of all organic forms by the accumulation of
+modifications and of divergences by the addition of differences to
+differences."</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Beyond all question [he adds] unlikenesses of structure gradually
+arise among the members of successive generations. We find that
+there is going on a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_148" id="page_148">{148}</a></span> modifying process of the kind alleged as the
+source of specific differences, a process which, though slow, does,
+in time, produce changes&mdash;a process which to all appearance would
+produce in millions of years any amount of changes.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>The Transformist doctrine is, therefore, that one species of plants or
+animals, has in natural course grown out of another, through the
+aggregation of changes each exceedingly minute. Darwinism adds that the
+ruling principle of this process is Natural Selection. These are the
+points on which our enquiry turns, and we may conveniently commence with
+the second.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_149" id="page_149">{149}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XV" id="XV"></a>XV</h3>
+
+<h4>DARWINISM</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">I<small>T</small> must first be observed that special consideration of Mr. Darwin's
+theory is rendered necessary even more imperatively on account of the
+claims advanced on his behalf by others, than of those to which he
+himself made any pretence. Without question the idea prevails almost
+universally, that he has furnished a scientific explanation of all
+organic phenomena through the operation of purely natural laws, and has
+thus rendered obsolete the idea that any power beyond Nature is required
+in order to account for the totality of things, or that there are any
+features of the world which indicate the operation of intelligent
+purpose.</p>
+
+<p>That such ideas should be widely prevalent amongst those who, having no
+special acquaintance with the subject, must depend for their knowledge
+on the popularizers of Science, is scarcely wonderful, for such
+teachers, with scarcely an exception, so declare, and occasionally real
+men of Science lend the weight of their authority to similar
+statements.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_150" id="page_150">{150}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It will be sufficient to cite Professor Haeckel, who writes thus:<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It seemed to Kant so impossible to explain the orderly processes in
+the living organism without postulating super-natural final causes
+(that is, a purposive creative force) that he said, "It is quite
+certain that we cannot even satisfactorily understand, much less
+elucidate, the nature of an organism and its internal faculty on
+purely mechanical natural principles&mdash;it is so certain, indeed,
+that we may confidently say: It is absurd for a man even to
+conceive the idea that some day a Newton will arise who can explain
+the origin of a single blade of grass by natural laws uncontrolled
+by design. Such a hope is entirely forbidden us." Seventy years
+afterwards this impossible Newton of the organic world appeared in
+the person of Charles Darwin, and achieved the great task that Kant
+had deemed impracticable.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is quite impossible to understand how such an assertion can be made
+by any one who knows the facts. Not only did Mr. Darwin never profess to
+have achieved any thing of the kind,&mdash;he repeatedly and distinctly
+disclaimed and repudiated any such supposition. Thus at the very end of
+his life (August 28, 1881) he wrote concerning one who had spoken of him
+like Professor Haeckel:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>He implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most
+monstrous exaggeration. The more one<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_151" id="page_151">{151}</a></span> thinks, the more one feels
+the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. If we consider the whole
+universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of
+chance.<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> The whole question seems to me insoluble.</p></div>
+
+<p>But it should not be necessary to appeal to such disclaimers in order to
+show how absolutely unwarrantable are the pretensions made on Mr.
+Darwin's behalf to have solved, or to have attempted to solve, the
+fundamental problems which scientific research unceasingly suggests but
+has never been able to elucidate. It should be quite sufficient to
+examine his theory as it actually is, and although its scope is
+immensely less ambitious than has been represented, it still occupies,
+even in its genuine form, a position of sufficient importance to
+challenge investigation.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin's famous and epoch-making book, published in November, 1859,
+was entitled <i>On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_152" id="page_152">{152}</a></span>
+or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life</i>. In it
+he undertook to show how from one species<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> of animals or plants,
+another, quite distinct from it, may be derived by means of processes
+which go on in Nature every day, through the accumulation of minute
+differences occurring in successive generations, and guided to their
+collective result by the force of "Natural Selection." As man, he
+argues, has by means of selection been able to produce in a brief space
+such astonishing varieties among his domestic animals and plants&mdash;as
+dogs, pigeons, roses or apples,&mdash;Nature, with the practically unlimited
+ages of geological time at her disposal, must be able to produce far
+greater and more enduring transformations, through the accumulation of
+minute differences, such as those upon which man has worked,&mdash;if only a
+factor can be found which amid the infinity of diverse and discordant
+variations spontaneously occurring, could, like the breeder or the
+gardener, pick out those leading to one particular result, and thus
+secure its accomplishment. Such a force Mr. Darwin conceives is found in
+"Natural Selection," which he thus explains.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_153" id="page_153">{153}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The tendency of organic life, whether vegetable or animal, being to
+propagate itself enormously,&mdash;and the life-sustaining capacity of the
+earth being limited,&mdash;it necessarily follows that only a fraction of the
+creatures which are born can survive to maturity, and that while those
+best fitted to live will live, those less well fitted will die. Thus,
+there is set up a constant struggle for existence, in which every
+advantage, however slight, must tell, so that those possessing such
+advantages in one generation will be the parents of the next. But in the
+course of propagation, the offspring never exactly reproduce the parent
+form, from which they vary, some in one way some in another, and as some
+of these variations cannot help being advantageous to their possessors
+in the struggle, we have here the required factor for the production of
+new forms. Any thus beneficially equipped, (although the variation, and
+consequently the advantage, must in each instance be exceedingly
+slight,) will have the chances on their side against their less favoured
+fellows, whom in the long run they will supplant. And as their
+offspring, or some of them, will carry the profitable variation somewhat
+further, the stream of life will thus be set in such a direction as will
+ultimately bring about what might at first appear impossible
+metamorphoses.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, to take a simple and favourite illustration,<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_154" id="page_154">{154}</a></span> winged insects
+inhabiting an island far from other land, are liable to be blown out to
+sea and drowned. It is in consequence, an advantage to them to have
+their power of flight curtailed, or taken away, and consequently in such
+situations their wings are generally found to be so reduced as to permit
+little or even nothing in the way of flying. Or to take an example of
+another kind,<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> the extraordinary length of neck which characterizes
+the giraffe enables it to browse on the higher branches of trees
+inaccessible to other vegetable feeders, and thus gives it an advantage
+over them in times of drought and scarcity of fodder. It can accordingly
+be easily understood, how its present structure has resulted from
+gradual elongations of the neck, each conferring on its possessor a
+slight advantage.</p>
+
+<p>The work attributed to Natural Selection in such instances, though no
+doubt highly important, is comparatively facile, and it would be
+difficult to say that it could not be accomplished. But Mr. Darwin
+ascribes to the same factor, not merely such modification of existing
+structures, but the creation of entirely new mechanisms for specific
+purposes. We have, for instance, heard his description of the eye and
+its manifold "inimitable contrivances:" yet all these, he persuaded
+himself, might be thus accounted for. The idea, he confessed,<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> seems
+at first sight preposterous; yet, though not without much
+difficulty,<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> he succeeded in convincing himself,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_155" id="page_155">{155}</a></span> that given the
+rudest and most rudimentary form of eye to start with&mdash;no more than a
+nerve sensitive to light but incapable of forming an image&mdash;Natural
+Selection might develop therefrom, through an infinite series of
+gradations the inconceivably complex machine that is now found in the
+higher vertebrates,<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> and the totally different but equally
+marvellous organs of sight possessed by insects, crustaceans, and other
+creatures.</p>
+
+<p>In like manner, Mr. Darwin contended, might the most complex and
+wonderful instincts be<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_156" id="page_156">{156}</a></span> generated. As an example may be cited that by
+which the hive-bee constructs its combs&mdash;of which he thus speaks:<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a
+comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic
+admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically
+solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper
+shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least
+possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has
+been remarked that a skilful workman with fitting tools and
+measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the
+true form, though this is perfectly effected by a crowd of bees
+working in a dark hive.<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> Granting whatever instincts you
+please, it seems at first sight quite inconceivable how they can
+make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when
+they are correctly made. But the difficulty is not nearly so great
+as it at first appears: all this beautiful work can be shown, I
+think, to follow from a few simple instincts.</p></div>
+
+<p>He accordingly proceeds to argue, that beginning with circular cells,
+like those of Humble Bees, and progressing through an intermediate form,
+circular where free, but with flat partition walls where two<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_157" id="page_157">{157}</a></span> or more
+cells touch one another, it is quite possible to suppose that Natural
+Selection has effected the whole improvement, those insects which
+accomplished any advance towards more scientific workmanship, and thus
+made materials go further, having been able to secure a livelihood
+better than their competitors.</p>
+
+<p>Such in brief outline is the Darwinian system, which undertakes to
+account for all the alleged facts of Organic Evolution by means of the
+above factor, variously described as "Natural Selection," or the
+"Survival of the fittest in the Struggle for Existence." It should be
+remembered, though it is constantly forgotten, that it is this
+particular theory as to the working-cause of evolutionary
+transformations which is the essence of Darwinism. Mr. Darwin did not
+originate the idea of genetic transformism, which is almost necessarily
+suggested by the systematic development of life-forms to which Geology
+bears witness. Consequently, long before he came on the scene, the
+doctrine of transformation had been propounded, especially by Lamarck,
+and if it had met with no general acceptance, this was chiefly because
+no force was indicated which seemed to offer a satisfactory account of
+the mode in which the required changes could have been wrought. Such a
+force Mr. Darwin's "Natural Selection" was widely taken to furnish, and
+his theory was eagerly welcomed and adopted by those who only required
+such a basis on which to ground beliefs to which they were already
+predisposed, and Darwinism thus obtained that<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_158" id="page_158">{158}</a></span> pre-eminent position
+which it still retains, at least in popular estimation.</p>
+
+<p>Two special arguments may here be mentioned, which, although they really
+apply to all systems of Organic Evolution, have obtained a prescriptive
+right to be quoted particularly in favour of Darwinism, their bearing on
+which is easily seen.</p>
+
+<p>The first is based on the frequent occurrence of "rudimentary,"
+"fragmentary," or "vestigial" structures in animals and plants, which,
+although now seemingly useless, or even harmful, to their possessors,
+may be assumed to have been of service to their ancestors, but under
+changed conditions to have been thrown out of work by Natural Selection,
+and atrophied by disuse. Such are&mdash;the splint-bones of the horse,
+representing lost digits,&mdash;the rudimentary legs of some whales and
+serpents,&mdash;the <i>mammae</i> and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the
+vegetable kingdom,&mdash;the aborted pistil in male florets of some
+<i>compositae</i>,&mdash;the useless corolla of certain wind-fertilized flowers,
+as <i>plantago</i>, and indeed the whole floral apparatus of plants which,
+like Wordsworth's pet the Lesser Celandine,<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> seldom ripen their
+seeds, but depend on other methods of propagation. The other fact cited
+on behalf of Darwinism is unquestionably very striking. In the course of
+their embryonic development, and even in the initial stages of their
+life after birth, higher animals pass through various phases in which
+they<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_159" id="page_159">{159}</a></span> exhibit the characteristics of lower forms. Thus all life starts
+from a cell, in which there is nothing to shew whether it is ever to be
+anything more than a cell, or is to evolve a plant or animal,&mdash;nor, in
+this latter case, what sort of animal it is to be&mdash;a mollusc, for
+instance, a frog, or a mammal. At a later stage<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> it is impossible to
+distinguish the embryos of lizards, birds, and mammals except by size.
+Even the human fetus at an early period bears vestiges of gill-clefts or
+arches, pointing to an aquatic existence. When the extremities come to
+be developed,<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> "The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet
+of birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the
+same fundamental form." The young of flat-fish such as soles and
+turbots, when they leave the egg are not flat, but shaped like ordinary
+fish, and they wear their eyes in the normal fashion, one on each side
+of their head, not both on the same side like their parents&mdash;whose form
+however they presently by degrees assume. Young lions and black birds
+are spotted, showing their affinity respectively to panthers and
+thrushes&mdash;and so on in numberless instances. All such features, it is
+assumed, indicate the <i>phylogeny</i> of each animal, or the history of the
+race to which it belongs. As Professor Milnes Marshall succinctly put
+the matter:<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_160" id="page_160">{160}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The phases through which an animal passes in its progress from the
+egg to the adult are no accidental freaks, no mere matters of
+developmental convenience, but represent more or less closely ...
+the successive ancestral stages through which the present condition
+has been acquired. Evolution tells us that each animal has had a
+pedigree in the past. Embryology reveals to us this ancestry,
+because every animal in its own development repeats this history,
+climbs up its own genealogical tree.</p></div>
+
+<p>Such are not by any means the only instances in which the Darwinist can
+appeal to Nature for facts with which his theory well agrees, and which
+therefore so far furnish a persuasive argument in its favour; but these
+are perhaps the chief ones, and the best known, and may serve as
+representative of their class which it is impossible for us to examine
+in detail.</p>
+
+<p>It now remains to enquire how far, from the point of view of Science,
+with which alone we are concerned, the Darwinian hypothesis can make
+good its claim to our acceptance. When we proceed accordingly to examine
+the grounds upon which it rests, it must be confessed that as we do so
+it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how such a theory has
+been able to obtain such wide acceptance, especially on the ground that
+scientific evidence is in its favour.</p>
+
+<p>On the very threshold of any such enquiry lies a difficulty the gravity
+of which seems to be strangely<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_161" id="page_161">{161}</a></span> overlooked. Darwinism by its own
+confession knows nothing of Origins, not even of the Origin of Species
+itself. There must be life already existing before Natural Selection has
+anything to select; there must be eyes and honey-cells of some kind,
+before they can be improved; there must be Species, before one can be
+transformed into another. Is it not evident, however, that the cause&mdash;of
+whatever kind it may be&mdash;which brought any of these into being, must
+have <i>something</i>,&mdash;not to say everything,&mdash;to do with the capacities and
+potentialities by which its future history is conditioned? But this
+supreme and vital factor Mr. Darwin entirely eliminates from his
+calculation. In his system, the initiating force has no more to do with
+the subsequent career of its productions, than has the gas which lifts a
+balloon with the direction in which it travels. It is not, on his
+theory, as the impulse which, besides raising from earth an arrow or
+rifle bullet, directs it to a goal, but, on the contrary, an organism
+once launched on its course is left to be driven hither and thither and
+twisted into this form and that, as clouds are by the wind. For the
+variations through which transformations are wrought, Darwin could find
+no better epithet than "fortuitous," and it is laid down by his
+staunchest disciples that if such variations be predetermined towards
+certain results, there is an end of Darwinism.</p>
+
+<p>It is not easy to understand how any theory can be deemed satisfactory
+which thus ignores the initial force, of whose existence and potency we
+have far clearer evidence than of any other.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_162" id="page_162">{162}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>When we turn from its omissions to study Darwinism as it is, obviously,
+in the first place, still, more than forty years since it was given to
+the world, it remains only an hypothesis, based not upon observation or
+experiment but speculation. In no single instance, past or contemporary,
+is one species known to have originated from another. The fact upon
+which Mr. Darwin primarily relies is that of variation. Undoubtedly
+amongst both plants and animals the offspring are not mere slavish
+reproductions of their parents, as if cast in the same mould, but
+exhibit individual differences, working upon which in domesticated
+instances, man can by selection produce wonderful varieties, as has
+already been admitted. But, as M. de Quatrefages says,<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> this tells
+us no more than that species admit of variation; it does not prove that
+they are capable of transformation, which is the whole point. Certainly,
+such transformation has never within our knowledge been effected. No
+breeder or fancier has succeeded, or can hope to succeed, in producing a
+new species. Moreover, as was pointed out by a critic whose ability Mr.
+Darwin himself candidly acknowledged,<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> the range of variability as
+we find it in any species is strictly limited, and although at first it
+is easy,&mdash;in the case of some few animals or plants,&mdash;to make great
+changes in particular directions, by selective breeding, it becomes more
+and more difficult<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_163" id="page_163">{163}</a></span> as we proceed to continue in the same line. If, for
+instance, in the case of pigeons, a bird can be produced in six years
+with head and beak only one-half the size of those whence the process
+started, are we to say that in twelve years their bulk will be reduced
+to a quarter, and in twenty-four to an eighth? No one could suppose
+anything so absurd. Mr. Darwin would answer, that he relies upon the
+vast periods of geologic time to produce alterations such as we cannot
+possibly attempt within the few years at our disposal. But, it is
+replied, no length of time will avail anything for such a purpose,
+unless there be some force to produce variations in the required
+direction, to the required extent. Such a force is not proved to
+exist&mdash;all the evidence is against it. Where art is most practised in
+improvement of breeds, or the obtaining of any peculiarities&mdash;as with
+the speed of racehorses, the size of toy-terriers, or the "points" of
+prize cattle, it becomes most strikingly apparent that we have reached a
+limit beyond which species will not vary. And until such a cause as we
+require is fully proved to exist, its supposed effects cannot be made
+the basis of scientific argument.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>A given animal or plant, [says the Reviewer] appears to be
+contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation; one individual
+lies near one portion of the surface, another individual near
+another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre. Any
+individual may produce descendants varying in any direction, but is
+more likely to produce descendants varying towards the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_164" id="page_164">{164}</a></span> centre of
+the sphere, and the variations in that direction will be greater in
+amount than the variations towards the surface. Thus a set of
+racers of equal merit indiscriminately breeding will produce more
+colts and foals of inferior than of superior breed, and the falling
+off of the degenerate will be greater than the improvement of the
+select (p. 282).</p></div>
+
+<p>Similarly M. Blanchard declares:<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>All investigation and observation make it clear that, while the
+variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in
+very different degrees, yet in its most astonishing manifestations
+it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass.</p></div>
+
+<p>And the facts of nature, as we know them, far from favouring the
+instability of species, exhibit a tenacity of form compelling us to
+treat them as practically immutable. Thus, as Mr. Carruthers points
+out,<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> in the notoriously variable genus <i>Salix</i>, or willow-tribe,
+which seems to be actively advancing towards a multiplication of its
+subdivisions, sub-genera, species, varieties, and hybrid forms,&mdash;one
+species is found, <i>S. polaris</i>, dating from before the Glacial Epoch,
+which has been driven from England and other lands, by climatic changes,
+to within the Arctic circle of both Hemispheres,&mdash;yet amid this stress
+of circumstances has preserved its specific identity, down even to the
+casual variations, which might be supposed to furnish the
+starting-points for new developments. Yet in this tribe,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_165" id="page_165">{165}</a></span> if anywhere,
+evidence of specific evolution might be looked for.<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></p>
+
+<p>Other instances seem to show that even under new and trying conditions
+those creatures survive best which keep closest to the central family
+type, not those which diverge in any direction. Thus, of European
+sparrows introduced in America, Mr. Bumpus writes:<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Natural Selection is most destructive of those birds which have
+departed most from the ideal type, and its activity raises the
+general standard by favouring those birds which approach the
+structural ideal.</p></div>
+
+<p>Variation supplies the raw material upon which Natural Selection is
+supposed to work. When we turn to examine the process by which its
+results should be produced, we find, quite apart from the above
+difficulties, a crop of others still more formidable.</p>
+
+<p>It must be remembered, that the variations on which Natural Selection
+must work are in each instance extremely minute, well-nigh
+infinitesimal. Mr. Darwin was as strongly opposed to the idea of Nature
+making sudden bounds, as to that of a predetermined course of
+development. But, he argued, an extra chance of living, however slight,
+must necessarily tell in the long run, the theory of probabilities
+giving results as certain as any others in mathematics, and, according
+to these, we may confidently say that, given sufficient time, the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_166" id="page_166">{166}</a></span>
+favoured individuals would infallibly distance their competitors.</p>
+
+<p>The impressiveness of such an argument depends upon its seemingly
+mathematical character, which is however wholly fallacious, for the
+probabilities are all the other way. It is perfectly true that a
+beneficial variation however slight will confer on its happy possessor a
+corresponding advantage in the struggle for life, as compared with each
+<i>individual</i> of the non-favoured herd, but, as to that herd
+collectively, the chances would, on the contrary, ensure that <i>some</i> of
+its members should outlive the favoured one. Let us even imagine the
+advantage of the latter to be very great, great enough to double his
+chances, so that the odds on his surviving each of his fellows will be
+two to one. Yet if there be a dozen of them to contend with, the odds
+will be six to one <i>against</i> his surviving the lot. And what of the
+actual case of minutest benefits conferred by variation? In order to
+give them even an equal chance of survival, the numbers of those
+possessing such advantages must be large in proportion as the advantages
+themselves are small. Thus, if a variation increases the chance of life
+by one-thousandth part, so that the odds on its possessor are 1001,
+against 1000 on each non-possessor, yet unless the number of possessors
+be to that of non-possessors as 1,000 to 1,001, their collective chances
+will not even be equal. As it is quite absurd to suppose that casual
+variations could ever occur in such wholesale fashion, how can it<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_167" id="page_167">{167}</a></span> be
+supposed that, were Natural Selection the only factor operating, minute
+advantages could be accumulated by variation even in the simplest cases?</p>
+
+<p>But it is also hard to suppose that in any actual case is the matter so
+simple as it appears to our limited comprehension. To take for instance
+the above example of the giraffe. It is very well to have a neck that
+will reach high-branches of a tree,&mdash;but this is not everything. For the
+mere prolongation of life, much else is required, fleet limbs to
+distance lions, and keen senses, sight, hearing, and smell, to give
+warning of the approach of human or other hunters, to say nothing of the
+extra strengthening of muscles and bones which increased size and weight
+demands. Unless, however, improvements in all these respects happened
+casually to concur in the same individual, which could scarcely happen,
+it is clear that each would militate against the others, for the
+survival of an individual beneficially developed in one respect, would
+tend to the extinction of other beneficial developments, possessed by
+individuals whom he overcame in the struggle for life.</p>
+
+<p>Even the case of the insular insects is by no means so plain as might at
+first sight appear. There can be no doubt that wings are of <i>some</i>
+advantage, or on no system could they be supposed to exist. Nor do their
+advantages cease because disadvantages outweigh them. If some insects
+are blown out to sea when flying, others will doubtless perish in one
+way or another because they cannot fly. It may<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_168" id="page_168">{168}</a></span> even be that those which
+can fly <i>best</i> will survive, as being able to make head against a breeze
+which overpowers others. Natural Selection will thus have many arrows in
+its quiver, some of which must reach the wrong objects.</p>
+
+<p>Still more clearly does this appear in the case of complex structures in
+which, if they were produced as Mr. Darwin supposes, variation must have
+hit simultaneously upon independent contrivances, without each of which
+all the others would be useless and confer no benefit at all. In the
+eye, for example, to mention but one or two of innumerable similar
+points, it would be of no avail to have a retina, even such as has been
+described, without a lens to throw an image upon it, set just at the
+proper distance, and provided with muscles to alter its shape according
+to the distance of the object. How can Natural Selection be even
+conceived to have set to work on such a task as this?</p>
+
+<p>It is still more fundamental to observe that, according to Mr. Darwin's
+own showing, Natural Selection is purely negative in its action. "If it
+does select, it selects for death and not for life."<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> It can
+originate nothing, but only destroy. All that it does for favoured races
+is to spare them while it sweeps away others, and the sole benefit they
+derive from it is to have more ample resources upon which to draw. But
+as for anything they possess in the way of structure or character, they
+must derive it entirely from themselves&mdash;Natural Selection can no more
+confer it, than the labourer who weeds a garden bed makes the flowers
+that grow there. Let<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_169" id="page_169">{169}</a></span> it be imagined that the first human beings on
+earth, any number of thousand years ago, planted a garden, and
+determined to produce a rose, by eliminating every plant that did not
+show some promise of progress rose-wards. Let the gardeners have been
+endowed with acumen sufficient to detect every symptom of such a
+tendency, and let their operations have been carried on without
+interruption to this day,&mdash;it is obvious that if roses had resulted, it
+could only be because among the plants they allowed to remain there
+existed a rose-making quality of some kind, to which, and not to
+anything done by human art or skill, the result was due. It would
+likewise have to be supposed that there were infinite other
+potentialities latent in the original plants, as of evolving thistles,
+shamrocks, or leeks&mdash;all equally awaiting their opportunity. Selective
+action could effectually put such competitors out of the way; but in the
+way of developing a race it could but leave it entirely to itself.
+Precisely similar is the part played by Natural Selection, except that
+it must needs play it immensely more slowly,&mdash;and if no one can fancy
+that human agency could by any possibility grow roses unless from some
+stock predetermined to grow into a rose and nothing else, what grounds
+have we that can be called scientific for attributing to a blind
+struggle for life an incomparably greater potency? Nor does it avail to
+quote the immense extent of time which may be supposed to have been
+available. No more than Natural Selection has<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_170" id="page_170">{170}</a></span> time by itself any
+creative power. We know on the contrary by experience, that when things
+are not controlled by some principle of order, the lapse of time serves
+only to make confusion worse confounded.</p>
+
+<p>Another consideration of prime importance is too frequently ignored. On
+Darwinian principles, each step in any development can be made, not
+because it leads to an advantageous result in the future, but only
+because it is itself advantageous. At each stage favoured individuals
+survive others because they are favoured here and now, not because, when
+the development they promote shall be completed, their remote
+descendants will be favoured. Hence it must, for instance, be possible
+to suppose, that all the intermediate forms between two extremes,
+whereof one is supposed to have originated the other, were, each in its
+day, so beneficial as to preserve their possessors at the expense of
+non-possessors. But can this possibly be even imagined?</p>
+
+<p>To take one example. We have heard, speaking of embryology, that the
+feet of lizards and the wings and feet of birds arise from the same
+fundamental form of limb, whence it is argued that birds and lizards are
+alike descended from a common sauroid, or lizard-like, ancestor, whose
+limbs in the case of the former class have developed into wings and into
+feet of a totally new type,&mdash;while scales were developing into feathers,
+and innumerable alterations of internal structure were simultaneously in
+progress. But<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_171" id="page_171">{171}</a></span> if so, to confine our attention to one particular, it
+must be true that each of the innumerable minute gradations between the
+fore-limb of a lizard and the wing of a bird, was in its turn the best
+kind of member for a creature to possess, giving him a distinct
+advantage in the struggle for existence. Nothing, however, appears
+plainer than that this could not possibly have been the case. The limb
+shaping towards a wing would be a very clumsy and inefficient leg long
+before it got to the point at which it became of the slightest use for
+purposes of flight, that is to say before its alteration was accompanied
+by any utility whatever. We can neither imagine that creatures furnished
+with limbs of such intermediate forms could have been otherwise than
+hopelessly handicapped by them, nor do we find anywhere in the rocks any
+trace whatever of the innumerable series of modifications which would be
+needed to link by imperceptible gradations legs and wings together.</p>
+
+<p>It only serves to make the matter less intelligible, that there <i>are</i>
+found in Secondary strata some few relics of birds with decidedly
+saurian characteristics,<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> as the <i>Hesperornis</i> and <i>Ichthyornis</i> in
+the Chalk, and the <i>Arch�opteryx</i>, most ancient of fowls, lower still,
+in the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the
+<i>Arch�opteryx</i> in addition has decidedly reptilian characters connected
+with its wings and tail. But none of them throw the slightest light upon
+the point we are now considering.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_172" id="page_172">{172}</a></span> In the case of all, the problem of
+flight has been completely solved. Their wings are no rudimentary
+structures half way between legs and wings, but as finished productions
+as those of to-day. As Professor Huxley acknowledges, if the skeletons
+of <i>Hesperornis</i> and <i>Icthyornis</i> had been found without their skulls,
+they would probably have been classed without more ado amongst existing
+birds. The latter "has, [he tells us,] strong wings, and no doubt
+possessed corresponding powers of flight." The wings of <i>Hesperornis</i>,
+he says, resemble those of our divers and grebes, and were probably
+used, like theirs, chiefly for swimming.<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> As for the <i>Arch�opteryx</i>,
+its reptilian features notwithstanding, it is a perfectly-appointed
+bird. As Sir Richard Owen testifies,<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> its wing, despite the
+peculiarities mentioned, is completely developed as to all essentials.
+Nor does even this member furnish the creature with its most bird-like
+characteristics,&mdash;but the keeled breast-bone, so intimately connected
+with the requirements of flight,&mdash;and, still more markedly, the feet.
+Professor Huxley writes: "The feet are not only altogether bird-like,
+but have the special character of the feet of perching birds; while the
+body had a clothing of true feathers."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_173" id="page_173">{173}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Thus, to whatever these Saurian birds may testify,&mdash;and the extreme
+importance of their evidence none will question&mdash;they no more serve to
+bridge the gulf between reptiles and birds, than a group of volcanic
+islets like the Azores bridges the Atlantic, for they supply no vestige
+of a continuous way from one term to the other. Rather, they do but
+enhance the mystery of the transformation, to the manner of which,
+despite their composite features, they furnish no clue.</p>
+
+<p>All such difficulties are enormously aggravated by a consideration
+which, obvious as it is, seems seldom to be considered. The arguments we
+commonly hear appear to imply that <i>one</i> parent is sufficient to secure
+the transmission of a beneficial variation to the next generation. But,
+of course, the parent requires a mate, and unless this mate has chanced
+to hit on the same line of variation, it cannot be supposed that it will
+be transmitted. Seeing, however, the exceeding minuteness of these
+variations in each instance, they can avail nothing to bring together
+the right mates to perpetuate them. Two reptiles, for instance, are not
+the more likely to pair because their fore limbs have taken the first
+faint and distant step towards becoming wings, while in the vegetable
+kingdom, notwithstanding Erasmus Darwin's <i>Loves of the Plants</i>, the
+idea of any choice of partners is still more grotesque. The allotment of
+mates must therefore be left to Chance; and the results will follow the
+ordinary laws of probability. Accordingly, if we suppose so large a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_174" id="page_174">{174}</a></span>
+proportion as five per cent., or one in twenty, of any species to
+possess an advantageous variation,&mdash;only one in twenty of the
+individuals thus favoured will secure a similarly favoured mate,&mdash;for
+each will have nineteen wrong selections offered to him or her, for one
+right one. Only one pair in four hundred will therefore transmit the
+variation to five per cent. of <i>their</i> offspring, or one in eight
+thousand of the species, and of these only one pair in
+a-hundred-and-sixty-thousand will make an advantageous match. Such is
+the inevitable consequence of leaving any definite result to Chance: and
+here it is that Natural Selection is found to betray the most fatal of
+all its deficiencies; for, whatever its advocates may say, it is Chance
+and Chance alone upon which it relies. Just because man can and does
+select the proper mates, is he able to produce by breeding the results
+to which Mr. Darwin appeals as evidence, that Nature having no such
+power of selection, must be able to produce results of which man cannot
+even dream.<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a></p>
+
+<p>Natural Selection is in truth no selection at all, that is just its weak
+point, which the title conferred upon it serves to hide. What are called
+its products owe no more to it than Wellington owed his generalship to
+the bullets which did not hit him at Seringapatam. If they are not
+determined to a particular development they can attain it only by
+Chance.</p>
+
+<p>Of Chance, enough has already been said. It is,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_175" id="page_175">{175}</a></span> however, worth our
+while to observe how constantly to the last Mr. Darwin was haunted by
+the consciousness that this was in reality the factor upon which his
+system must depend, and that it could not possibly account for much that
+he came across in nature. If, as he confessed, the sight of a peacock's
+tail-feather made him sick, it was just because its elaborate beauty, to
+which no commensurate advantage can be supposed to attach, forbade the
+notion that his theory could account for it. So, of another still more
+marvellous instance in which Nature exhibits artistic power, namely the
+ball-and-socket ornament on the wings of the Argus pheasant, he
+writes:<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>No one, I presume, will attribute this shading, which has excited
+the admiration of many experienced artists, to chance&mdash;to the
+fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring matter. That these
+ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many
+successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to
+produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one
+of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of
+chance daubs of paints made by a long succession of young artists,
+not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.</p></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 550px;">
+<a href="images/illp176_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp176_sml.jpg" width="550" height="403" alt="Feathers from wing of Argus Pheasant, from Darwin&#39;s Descent of Man.
+
+1. Basal portion of secondary wing-feather; nearest body, shewing first
+rudiment of &quot;ocelli.&quot;
+
+2. Portion of secondary wing-feather near body, shewing &quot;elliptic&quot;
+ornaments.
+
+3. Part of secondary wing-feather, shewing developed &quot;ocelli.&quot;" title="" /></a>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_177" id="page_177">{177}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Nevertheless, Mr. Darwin proceeds to argue at considerable length that
+an explanation consistent with his theory is favoured by the occurrence
+on the same wings of designs exhibiting every stage of gradation from a
+mere spot to the finished ball-and-socket <i>ocellus</i>; in the same way as
+the tail feathers of a peacock advance from a mere sketch to the
+completed design. It is not easy, however, to understand in what way
+this is supposed to solve the difficulty and not vastly to increase it.
+That a finished artistic effect should be fortuitously produced at all
+would be incredible enough. That it should be worked up by Chance
+through a series of processes, each doing something towards its
+completion, is surely not less, but far more inconceivable.</p>
+
+<p>In such a mode of explanation, however, is exemplified a feature which
+must not be forgotten in discussing Darwinism,&mdash;namely the fatal
+facility with which seeming arguments can be procured on its behalf. As
+Mr. Mivart well remarks:<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> "The Darwinian theory has the great
+advantage of only needing for its support the suggestion of some
+possible utility, actual or ancestral, in each case&mdash;no difficult task
+for an ingenious, patient, and accomplished thinker." And our <i>North
+British</i> Reviewer makes a similar comment: "The believer who is at
+liberty to invent any imaginary circumstances, will very generally be
+able to conceive some series of transmutations answering his wants."</p>
+
+<p>Or if, as in the above instance of the Argus' eyes, a series is actually
+found, it is even less difficult to take for granted that it can have
+but one significance; while such assumptions are too frequently<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_178" id="page_178">{178}</a></span>
+accepted without hesitation or demur, although it would be no easy task
+to show that they rest upon any solid grounds. When, in addition, either
+Mr. Darwin himself or some of his leading partisans has declared that
+some unverified process has undoubtedly occurred, or that they see no
+reason to doubt its occurrence, or that nothing which we know precludes
+its possibility,&mdash;it appears to be widely supposed that something
+substantial is thereby added to the scientific evidence, and that the
+suppositions thus sanctioned may even rank as facts. But however such a
+method may avail to secure acceptance for a doctrine, it does nothing
+for its scientific value. Such a style, as Mr. Mivart says,<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> is
+calculated to impress only minds too easily dominated, and not prepared
+by special studies accurately to weigh the evidence put before them.</p>
+
+<p>Illustrations of this strange method of procedure are furnished in
+connexion with various points already mentioned. Thus, as we have seen,
+Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the origin of rational speech, by the
+conscious utterance of a significant sound by an unusually wise ape-like
+creature. In favour of this very large suggestion, Mr. Darwin has
+nothing more substantial to say<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> than that "it does not appear
+altogether incredible," which does not appear to take us very far.<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a>
+Yet I have<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_179" id="page_179">{179}</a></span> seen this described as an "idyllic scene" shedding an
+entirely new light on the subject. So again in regard of the evolution
+of the eye.<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> Having summarily enumerated the various stages of
+development exhibited by this organ as actually existing in various
+animals, Mr. Darwin goes on to say that when we remember how small the
+number of living forms must be in comparison with extinct, and the other
+gradations that may consequently have existed, "the difficulty ceases to
+be very great" in believing that Natural Selection has connected the
+most rudimentary with the perfect structure. Similarly, as to the
+cell-making instinct of the bee,<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> having postulated four several
+suppositions for which evidence is not forthcoming, he concludes: "By
+such modification of instincts ... I believe that the hive bee has
+acquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural
+powers."<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> Similar examples might be multiplied indefinitely.</p>
+
+<p>Not unfrequently the tone of such utterances is more imperious. Thus, of
+the descent of Man from some animal ancestor Mr. Darwin pronounces<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a>
+"The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken," and
+again<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> "the possession of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_180" id="page_180">{180}</a></span> exalted mental powers is no insuperable
+objection to this conclusion" ... "It is only [p. 32] our natural
+prejudice which leads us to demur to this conclusion." He even goes so
+far as to declare that his view is forced upon every man who is not
+content to assume the mental attitude of a savage.<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a></p>
+
+<p>Argumentation of this character, which he finds common with Darwin to
+other Evolutionists, is judged by de Quatrefages to be one of the
+weakest and most misleading features of their systems.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Personal conviction [he writes],<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> mere possibility, are offered
+as proofs, or at least as arguments in favour of the theory. Can we
+admit their validity? Obviously not. The human mind can conceive
+many things: is that a reason for accepting them all?... Obviously
+more serious proofs are needed. After all, save where a
+contradiction is involved, everything is <i>possible</i>.... If
+adopting, under the shadow of Oken's great name, his principle of
+the repetition of phenomena, a naturalist should maintain that each
+of the planets has its own Europe, its England, and its Darwin
+expounding to the Jovians and Saturnians the origin of species, I
+do not quite see how one would set about showing him that he was
+wrong. Unquestionably the thing is <i>possible</i>. Are we to draw the
+conclusion that it is a fact?</p></div>
+
+<p>Again,<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> the same distinguished naturalist, having quoted Darwin's
+very elaborate explanation of a difficulty, remarks:<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_181" id="page_181">{181}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We see how with Darwin, as with his precursors, one hypothesis
+necessitates another. But can he, at least, by means of these
+subsidiary theories, these comparisons, these metaphors, account
+for all the facts? No, he himself honestly confesses more than once
+that he cannot. It is true that he adds "I am convinced that the
+objections have little weight, and the difficulties are not
+insoluble." But is this conviction of his a proof, or even an
+argument?</p></div>
+
+<p>M. Blanchard likewise comments vigorously on this mode of argumentation.
+Speaking of the Mole and Darwin's explanation of its blindness, namely
+that having taken to living under-ground it lost its eyes through
+disuse&mdash;which he considers a most preposterous supposition,&mdash;M Blanchard
+continues:<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The realms of fancy are boundless; but the observer who is
+concerned with realities can only have recourse to the facts of
+science. Fossil remains discovered in very ancient strata show that
+the underground animal of present times does not differ from his
+geological counterpart. The Mole belongs to a very peculiar type,
+and has no nearer European relatives than the Hedgehog and the
+Shrew. Can we imagine a common ancestor of Shrews, Hedgehogs, and
+Moles? On this point Mr. Darwin expresses no opinion,&mdash;which should
+not be, for when confronted by forms clearly differentiated, he is
+wont to extricate himself from difficulties with matchless
+facility. The intermediate links, he will say, were doubtless<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_182" id="page_182">{182}</a></span> less
+fitted to live than were the others, and so have disappeared. After
+<i>that</i> the Evolutionists consider any one quite out of date who
+does not consider himself entirely satisfied with so felicitous an
+explanation.</p></div>
+
+<p>M. de Quatrefages denounces another fatal defect often observable in the
+method of proof.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Mr. Darwin frequently complains that our actual knowledge is
+incomplete. But instead of discovering in our lack of precise and
+extensive information a motive for caution, he appears to derive
+from it only greater daring. Doctrines based on the instability of
+species have often been combated by geologists and pal�ontologists.
+In reply to their objections Darwin devotes a whole chapter to
+shewing the imperfection of the geological record. "For my part,"
+he concludes, "I look at the geological record as a history of the
+world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect; of this
+history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or
+three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short
+chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a
+few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less
+different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of
+life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which
+falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the
+difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even
+disappear."</p>
+
+<p>On my part [continues M. de Quatrefages] I will ask whether such a
+conclusion is the correct one. No doubt, Darwin is right in
+refusing to certain naturalists the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_183" id="page_183">{183}</a></span> right to dogmatize on the
+strength of uncompleted studies, or scanty and isolated
+observations. Is he therefore entitled to allege as proofs on his
+own behalf the very gaps of science, appealing to the lost volumes
+and leaves of Nature's chronicle? Clearly not. But the slightest
+reflection suffices to recognize that this appeal to the unknown,
+so frankly evidenced in the above passage, lies at the root of all
+argumentation analogous to that which I have tried to
+describe&mdash;that of Maillet, Lamarck, and Geoffroy,<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> as well as
+Darwin. Only the unknown, in sooth, can open the boundless region
+of speculation, where the possible replaces the actual, and where,
+despite the widest knowledge and the soundest intelligence, one
+comes as by a fatality to find a conclusive proof on one's own
+side, precisely in that of which we profess to know nothing.</p></div>
+
+<p>So again, speaking of a certain conclusion of Professor Haeckel's
+concerning the embryology of lemurs, which MM. Grandidier and Alphonse
+Edwards afterwards proved experimentally to be altogether erroneous, de
+Quatrefages writes:<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book
+preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea
+itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the
+majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin
+set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody
+knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_184" id="page_184">{184}</a></span> knowledge,
+and draw arguments from their very ignorance.</p></div>
+
+<p>In like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once.
+Thus:<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult
+of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds,
+tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of
+species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable
+barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be
+no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However
+an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced
+somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have
+spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results.</p></div>
+
+<p>And again:<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous
+scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as
+to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as
+follows:&mdash;"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is
+possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those
+hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable." There is
+little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually <i>have
+been</i>.</p></div>
+
+<p>In no respect, moreover, have Darwin's followers more closely imitated
+their master than in the construction<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_185" id="page_185">{185}</a></span> of such hypotheses, which would
+appear to constitute in the eyes of many the most important work of
+Science. Attention has very largely been diverted from Nature as
+actually existing, which seems to be studied more for the light it can
+be supposed to throw upon evolutionary history, than simply for itself,
+and it seems to be thought that to imagine the mode of an evolutionary
+process is equivalent to establishing the facts which that process
+supposes. By this method lengthy and learned papers are written
+concerning the transformation of one species into another, which in
+reality do no more than describe in minute detail all the changes which
+must have taken place, <i>if</i> the said transformation really occurred.
+That Science is thus benefited, is not the opinion of some at least who
+are well entitled to speak on her behalf, for as the President of the
+Linnean Society recently observed,<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> as one grows older, it becomes
+more and more apparent that facts alone are of any serious interest, and
+that speculations however ingenious and attractive are best left to the
+constructive and destructive energies of the young. So too, a few years
+ago, the President of the Microscopical Society complained that interest
+in living creatures is largely supplanted by dead ones.<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We read much [he said] of the animal's organs: we see plates
+showing that its bristles have been counted,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_186" id="page_186">{186}</a></span> and its muscular
+fibres traced to the last thread; we have the structure of its
+tissues analyzed to their very elements; we have long discussions
+on its title to rank with this group or that; and sometimes even
+disquisitions on the probable form and habits of some extremely
+remote, but quite hypothetical, ancestor, who is made to degrade in
+this way, or to advance in that, or who is credited with one organ
+or deprived of another, just as the ever-varying necessities of a
+desperate hypothesis require....</p></div>
+
+<p>There is another aspect of the question which must by no means be
+overlooked. It has to be assumed that Natural Selection, or the survival
+of the fittest in the struggle for existence, necessarily tends to the
+benefit of the <i>race</i> and moreover to its farther development on the
+upward grade, towards a more perfect and more specialized
+organization;&mdash;in Mr. Herbert Spencer's words, to progression from a
+relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a relatively definite,
+coherent heterogeneity. But here many questions occur.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, a consideration presents itself, which appears to
+furnish the most formidable of all difficulties in the way of Mr.
+Darwin's hypothesis. How can this struggle for existence be supposed to
+have any tendency to promote organic development to ever higher and more
+perfect types, in the orderly sequence which has in fact occurred? The
+"Survival of the fittest" means only the survival <i>of the fittest to
+survive</i>,&mdash;of such as can find means of living where others cannot.
+Unless it can be shown<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_187" id="page_187">{187}</a></span> that increased complexity of organization
+necessarily brings with it such increased vitality, Natural Selection
+can do nothing for organic development. If the mere power of living be
+the only factor in the process, as on Mr. Darwin's showing it is, a man
+is only a more complicated and delicate machine for securing the same
+object which can equally well, or better, be attained by a mole, a
+cockroach, or a microbe. And who will say that, so far as this
+particular end is concerned, he is better equipped than creatures which
+all the resources of civilization are powerless to exterminate?</p>
+
+<p>That practical advantage in the struggle for existence must necessarily
+accompany increased specialization of organs, and thus produce a
+"higher" organization, was a prime point of Mr. Darwin's argument,
+though at the same time he found himself compelled to encumber it with
+qualifications which go very far to neutralize its force; for he had to
+explain the obvious fact that so many creatures which represent the
+lowest and least specialized forms of life, have survived down to our
+own time. Thus he writes:<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The degree of differentiation and specialization of the parts in
+organic beings, when arrived at maturity, is the best standard, as
+yet suggested, of their degree of perfection or highness. As the
+specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural
+selection will tend to render the organization of each being more<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_188" id="page_188">{188}</a></span>
+specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but that it
+may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures
+fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even
+degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded
+beings better fitted for their new walks of life.</p>
+
+<p>By this fundamental test of victory in the battle of life, as well
+as by the standard of the specialization of organs, modern forms
+ought, on the theory of Natural Selection, to stand higher than
+ancient forms. Is this the case? A large number of pal�ontologists
+would answer in the affirmative; and it seems that this answer must
+be admitted as true, though difficult of proof.</p></div>
+
+<p>That is to say, Natural Selection is just as ready to degrade as to
+elevate a creature, according to the actual requirements of the
+circumstances in which it is placed, and how far progress has been the
+rule, rather than stability or retrogression, is a question for
+geological history to determine. This we shall have to consider in our
+next chapter.</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise obvious that so far as the mere struggle for existence is
+concerned, a species each of whose individual members is but poorly
+furnished, may nevertheless flourish unimpaired on the mere strength of
+its fecundity. It is thus, says M. Blanchard,<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> that the lower forms
+of life continue to hold their own despite the enormous ravages to which
+they are subject. The herring,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_189" id="page_189">{189}</a></span> for example, affords food to all the
+fowls of the air and fish of the sea, over and above the myriads
+annually requisitioned by man. Yet its hosts show no sign of being
+exterminated or even reduced. Much the same is the case of the cod; but
+a tribe one individual of which has been known to produce nine million
+eggs does not require much in the way of coherent heterogeneity to
+ensure its survival.</p>
+
+<p>Thus it appears that of itself Darwinism affords no explanation whatever
+of the regular progression of life forms from lower to higher, to which
+the records of Nature bear witness, and which is the one solid fact
+suggesting the idea of Evolution.</p>
+
+<p>Such are some of the reasons which, on purely rational grounds, appear
+amply to justify those who decline to pledge their faith to Darwinism,
+in spite of the popularity it enjoys. But what is to be said of the
+phenomena cited as furnishing positive and unimpeachable evidence in its
+favour, which were mentioned above in our sketch of its main features?</p>
+
+<p>First as to the rudimentary, fragmentary, or vestigial organs so common
+in Nature. These, it is said, being of no possible advantage to their
+possessors, and often a serious disadvantage, can be explained only by
+supposing that they were serviceable in the past to the ancestral race
+whence these possessors are derived, and have since been superseded by
+other modifications of structure, so as to dwindle away by disuse. This,
+no doubt, seems a very plausible explanation, but it does not follow
+that we<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_190" id="page_190">{190}</a></span> ought immediately to adopt it as a certainty, instead of
+setting ourselves to examine how it accords with all the facts. Nothing
+is more dangerous and less scientific than to be in a hurry to conclude
+that everything is certain which seems to ourselves probable, especially
+if it suits a theory of our own. Unfortunately, this law is too
+frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance. In the
+present instance, Professor Haeckel himself furnishes an example. He is
+quite sure that the rudimentary structures can have but one
+significance, and that they are fatal to the idea of purpose in Nature,
+the object of his special aversion, and so he has proposed a new term,
+"Dysteleology," to embody this idea, of which he says,<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness</i> [is] the name I
+have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of suppressed and
+degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of the body; one of the
+most important and most interesting branches of comparative
+anatomy, which, when rightly estimated, is alone sufficient to
+refute the fundamental error of the teleological and dualistic
+conception of Nature, and to serve as the foundation of the
+mechanical and monistic conception of the universe.</p></div>
+
+<p>It will be sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's remarks upon this
+passage, taken from the very laudatory review he wrote of the work in
+which it occurs.<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_191" id="page_191">{191}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+<p>Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,
+"Dysteleology," for the study of the "purposelessnesses" which are
+observable in living organisms&mdash;such as the multitudinous cases of
+rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,
+that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut
+two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that
+useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral
+rudiments of toes in the foot of a horse place us in a dilemma.
+For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which
+case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form
+since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or
+they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no
+use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but stronger
+argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even
+functional mammary glands in male mammals.... There can be little
+doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the
+remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet
+it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male
+organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its
+dysteleological value is gone.</p></div>
+
+<p>In later editions Professor Huxley further observed: "The recent
+discovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a
+warning to all speculators about useless organs."<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_192" id="page_192">{192}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It seems, therefore, the wiser part to refrain from basing any vital
+conclusions upon these organs until we can assure ourselves that our
+knowledge warrants our so doing. As the same Professor Huxley intimated,
+it might be well for pal�ontologists, and doubtless for biologists
+likewise,<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> "To learn a little more carefully that scientific '<i>ars
+artium</i>,' the art of saying 'I don't know.'"</p>
+
+<p>So again as to the phenomena of embryology. No doubt they are very
+striking and impressive. That the most highly developed creatures, and
+man himself, should in the first stages of existence exhibit the
+characteristics of lower forms, is an exemplification of development no
+less signal than the succession of ascending types witnessed to by the
+rocks. It is not easy to see, however, why it should be taken for
+granted that this can only signify genetic descent from all such forms,
+and that these embryo animals are engaged in climbing up their
+genealogical trees. Yet this is usually assumed as a matter of course,
+and any one who ventures to question the validity of such an inference,
+must be prepared to find himself accused of dogmatizing.</p>
+
+<p>And yet, after all, upon what grounds does the assumption rest? That
+such a recapitulation of racial experiences forms no essential feature
+of Evolution is sufficiently evident from the case of the vegetable
+world,&mdash;for plants do not climb <i>their</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_193" id="page_193">{193}</a></span> genealogical trees, or pass in
+the seed through a series of botanical phases. And as to animals, since
+through all varieties of form, each always arrives at the required term,
+it is obvious that, apart from any archaic associations, and on
+Darwinian principles themselves, these forms must be the best for the
+purpose at each respective stage,&mdash;perhaps the only ones by which the
+term could be reached. It is therefore, to say the least, quite
+conceivable, that we have here the whole explanation and need go no
+further.</p>
+
+<p>In certain instances this obvious consideration is strikingly
+illustrated. Thus the salamander, an Amphibian of the newt family,
+brings forth its young in adult condition without gills.<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> But
+previously to birth they have gills relatively large. The experiment
+having been tried of bringing some of them forth by artificial means
+before their time, and placing them in water, the first thing they did
+was to cast off these big gills, which were speedily replaced by new
+ones of much smaller size, and evidently better suited for the work
+required, as they lasted as long as a fortnight.</p>
+
+<p>Here, in the first place, it is quite impossible to suppose that the
+large gills would continue to appear unless they were of advantage
+during the period of gestation. It is equally evident that it is not
+from a previous aquatic condition that they are inherited, for in such a
+condition they are useless. Finally, as Mr. Mivart observes, the new
+gills, suitable<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_194" id="page_194">{194}</a></span> for unwonted conditions, were developed "not in a
+struggle for existence against rivals, but directly and spontaneously
+from the innate nature of the animal."</p>
+
+<p>This view of the matter commended itself on mature consideration to so
+ardent an evolutionist as Carl Vogt, with whom we may couple M. de
+Quatrefages, who cites his words with approval as follows:<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It has been laid down as a fundamental law of biogenesis that
+ontogeny (the development of the individual) and phylogeny (that of
+the race) must exactly correspond.... This law which I long held as
+well founded is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of
+embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own
+conditions suitable to themselves, very different from those of
+adults.</p></div>
+
+<p>"In a word," M. de Quatrefages continues, "the learned Genevan professor
+rightly considers that, 'The ontogenesis of all organic beings without
+exception, is the normal result of all the various influences which
+operate upon such beings.'"</p>
+
+<p>But it must, moreover, be noted that the story which embryology can be
+made to tell is by no means so plain as we might easily be led to
+suppose.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, although snakes are held to be descended from lizards, and some of
+them have rudimentary legs even in the adult stage, others have no trace
+of limbs even in the egg, while they <i>have</i> vestiges<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_195" id="page_195">{195}</a></span> of gills, and thus
+would seem to be visibly linked to ancient water-dwelling ancestors, and
+not to far more recent land-dwellers. Again;<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> Amphibians (frogs,
+newts and the like) agree in some respects, as to the development of the
+germ, with mammals, differing in the same respects from reptiles and
+birds. But reptiles and birds are supposed to be a more recent
+development than Amphibia, and therefore should intervene between them
+and mammals on the genealogical tree. Moreover the eggs of one group of
+Amphibians are found to exhibit some remarkable resemblances to those of
+reptiles and birds, from which it would thus appear to have derived
+them, although on other grounds it is declared to be of an older stock
+than theirs. Most frogs, toads, and newts come out of the egg as
+tadpoles, furnished with gills and so breathing in water. This should
+signify that these creatures are descended from fish or fishlike
+ancestors. But one frog (<i>Rana opisthodon</i>) is never a tadpole even in
+the egg, from which he gets out by means of a special opener on his
+snout which he has somehow acquired. On the other hand certain
+newts<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> breed as tadpoles instead of in their mature form, which
+looks like an attempt to climb down the tree instead of up.</p>
+
+<p>It will be remembered that the latter phrase was that used by Professor
+Milnes Marshall. Yet even he expressed himself strongly concerning the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_196" id="page_196">{196}</a></span>
+exaggerations of Professor Haeckel on this subject. In his review of
+Haeckel's <i>Anthropogenie</i>,<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> after observing that many descriptions
+of human embryology have been based on observations of dogs, pigs,
+rabbits, or even chickens and dogfish, he thus continued regarding the
+book before him:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>A student who relied on Professor Haeckel's description, would
+obtain an entirely erroneous idea of the development of the human
+embryo.... It is a matter for great regret that a book of 900
+pages, bearing such a title, should be allowed to appear, in which
+the account of the actual development of the human embryo is so
+inadequate or even erroneous.</p></div>
+
+<p>Far more fundamental, however, is a remark of Mr. Mivart's, that if, as
+Darwinians say, the development of the individual is an epitome of that
+of the species, the latter must like the former be due to the action of
+definite innate laws unconsciously carrying out definite preordained
+ends and purposes. For although cells or embryos may be
+indistinguishable from one another, and may appear to us identical in
+constitution, their differences are absolute. Each is determined to be
+one sort of animal and no other, and can live at all only on condition
+of developing towards the prescribed form.&mdash;Therefore, whatever evidence
+the embryonic forms may be supposed to afford in support of Evolution,
+they have nothing in common with the haphazard process of Natural
+Selection.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_197" id="page_197">{197}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>And here again Professor Huxley found himself obliged to enter his
+<i>caveat</i>, and to intimate his opinion that some of his friends were
+inclined to build too confidently upon this foundation. As his
+biographer Professor Weldon writes in the <i>Dictionary of National
+Biography</i>:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Darwin had suggested an interpretation of the facts of embryology
+which led to the hope that a fuller knowledge of development might
+reveal the history of all the great groups of animals at least in
+its main outlines. This hope was of service as a stimulus to
+research, but the attempt to interpret the phenomena observed led
+to speculations which were often fanciful and always incapable of
+verification. Huxley was keenly sensible of the danger attending
+the use of a hypothetical explanation, leading to conclusions which
+cannot be experimentally tested, and he carefully avoided it.... In
+the preface to the <i>Manual of the Comparative Anatomy of
+Invertebrated Animals</i>, he says: "I have abstained from discussing
+questions of �tiology,<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> not because I underestimate their
+importance, or am insensible to the interest of the great problem
+of Evolution, but because, to my mind, the growing tendency to mix
+up �tiological speculations with morphological generalizations
+will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion."</p></div>
+
+<p>Accordingly, Huxley himself based his faith in Evolution on
+pal�ontological evidence, and attempted to decide the precise course it
+had followed only "in the few cases where the evidence seemed<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_198" id="page_198">{198}</a></span> to him
+sufficiently complete." This line of enquiry we have still to pursue,
+but meanwhile, it is evident that the phenomena we have been
+considering, failing to meet the approval of so thorough-going an
+Evolutionist as he undoubtedly was, cannot be said to furnish convincing
+scientific evidence in favour of Darwinism.</p>
+
+<p>It will be asked how it comes to pass, if the Darwinian system really
+lies open to so many objections, that it occupies so large a place in
+scientific estimation. To this we must reply that, in spite of its great
+name, its success has throughout been popular rather than truly
+scientific, and that as time went on it has lost ground among the class
+of men best qualified to judge. Evolutionists there are in plenty,&mdash;but
+very few genuine Darwinists, and amongst these can by no means be
+reckoned all who adopt the title, for not a few of them&mdash;as Romanes and
+Weismann&mdash;profess doctrines which cannot be reconciled with those of
+Darwin himself. Meanwhile, an increasing volume of scientific opinion
+sets definitely against Darwinism as an adequate explanation of the
+philosophy of life, and falls into the view expressed long ago by
+Charles Robin<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> who, as a freethinker, had no antecedent objections
+against it, "Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of
+probabilities without proof, and of attractive explanations without
+demonstration."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_199" id="page_199">{199}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It would be tedious to cite testimonies at length, but, in addition to
+M. de Quatrefages who has made a full and careful study of the whole
+question, [<i>Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais</i>, and <i>Les Emules
+de Darwin</i>] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [<i>La
+vie des �tres anim�s</i>], Wigand [<i>Der Darwinismus und die
+Naturforschung</i>, etc.], Wolff [<i>Beitr�ge zur Kritik der darwinschen
+Lehre</i>], Hamann [<i>Entwicklungslehre und Darwinismus</i>], Pauly [<i>Wahres
+und Falsches an Darwins Lehre</i>], Driesch [<i>Biologisches Zentralblatt</i>,
+1896 and 1902], Plate [<i>Bedeutung und Tragweite des Darwinschen
+Selektionsprincip</i>], Hertwig [<i>Address to Naturalist Congress</i>,
+<i>Aachen</i>, 1900], Heer [<i>Urwelt der Schweiz</i>], K�lliker [<i>Ueber die
+darwin'sche Sch�pfungstheorie</i>], Eimer [<i>Entstehung der Arten</i>], Von
+Hartmann [<i>Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus</i>], Schilde
+[<i>Antidarwinistisches im Ausland</i>], Du Bois-Reymond [<i>Conference</i>,
+August 2, 1881, etc.], Virchow [<i>Freiheit der Wissenschaft</i>, etc.],
+N�geli [<i>Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre</i>],
+Schaafhausen [<i>Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen</i>], Fechner [<i>Ideen zur
+Sch�pfungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen</i>], Jakob [<i>Der
+Mensch</i>, etc.], Diebolder [<i>Darwins Grundprinzip</i>, etc.], Huber [<i>Die
+Lehre Darwins kritisch betrachtet</i>], Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer,&mdash;all
+of whom either reject Darwinism altogether, or admit it only with fatal
+reservations.</p>
+
+<p>Special weight must attach to the adverse verdict of M. Fabre, styled by
+Darwin himself "that inimitable<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_200" id="page_200">{200}</a></span> observer," who declares that he cannot
+reconcile the theory with the facts he encounters.<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a></p>
+
+<p>It must be sufficient to quote one or two of our own countrymen, whose
+utterances will enable us to form an opinion as to the true scientific
+status of the doctrine.</p>
+
+<p>We may begin with Huxley, the great popular champion of Darwinism, who
+did more than any other man to spread the new doctrine. Yet, strange to
+say, he seems never to have really accepted its fundamental tenet
+himself, always appearing very shy of Natural Selection, and carefully
+abstaining from committing himself to any responsibility for it. Thus in
+his treatise on <i>Man's Place in Nature</i>, he thus explains his position
+in its regard:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent
+with any biological fact; on the contrary, if admitted, the facts
+of Development, of Comparative Anatomy, of Geographical
+Distribution, and of Pal�ontology, become connected together, and
+exhibit a meaning such as they never possessed before; and I, for
+one, am firmly convinced, that if not precisely true, that
+hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for
+example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the
+planetary motions. But for all this, our acceptance of the
+Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+chain of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_201" id="page_201">{201}</a></span> evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and
+plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock
+are fertile with one another, the link will be wanting. For, so
+long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do
+all that is required of it to produce natural species.</p></div>
+
+<p>This missing link, like various others, has never been supplied, and in
+consequence Professor Huxley never abandoned his attitude of reserve. On
+the contrary, when, in 1880, he delivered an address to celebrate "the
+Coming of Age of the <i>Origin of Species</i>" he discharged the task without
+once mentioning Natural Selection, which is to that work as the Prince
+of Denmark is to <i>Hamlet</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But there is one passage in the said address, which deserves to be
+specially remembered:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to
+begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now
+stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty
+years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the
+present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of
+the <i>Origin of Species</i>, with as little reflection, and it may be
+with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries,
+twenty years ago, rejected them.</p></div>
+
+<p>In 1886, Professor Romanes pronounced as follows:<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a></p>
+
+<p>"At present it would be impossible to find any working naturalist who
+supposes that survival of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_202" id="page_202">{202}</a></span> the fittest is competent to explain all the
+phenomena of species-formation."</p>
+
+<p>As to the actual position now occupied in Scientific opinion by Mr.
+Darwin's hypotheses, we may content ourselves with the declaration of
+Professor S. H. Vines in his Presidential address to the Linnean
+Society, May 24, 1902.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>1. It is established that Natural Selection, though it may have
+perpetuated species, cannot have originated any.</p>
+
+<p>2. It is still a mystery why Evolution should tend from the lower
+to the higher, from simple to complex organisms.</p>
+
+<p>3. The facts seem to admit of no other interpretation than that
+variation is not [as Darwin supposed] indeterminate, but that there
+is in living matter an inherent determination in favour of
+variation in the higher direction.</p></div>
+
+<p>That is to say, Darwin's <i>Origin of Species</i> does not explain the Origin
+of Species; and as to the laws which govern Evolution we can be sure
+only that they are not those which he assigned.</p>
+
+<p>In like manner, Sir Oliver Lodge pronounces:<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Take the origin of species by the persistence of favourable
+variations; how is the appearance of these same favourable
+variations accounted for? Except by artificial selection not at
+all. Given their appearance, their development by struggle and
+inheritance and survival can be explained; but that they arose
+spontaneously,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_203" id="page_203">{203}</a></span> by random changes without purpose, is an assertion
+which cannot be made.</p></div>
+
+<p>We are thus in a position to form our own judgment as to the claim made
+on behalf of Mr. Darwin, with which we started this chapter&mdash;namely,
+that he has eliminated all mystery from the organic world by the
+discovery of natural mechanical laws by which all its operations are
+governed. It is, indeed, difficult to understand how Darwinists
+themselves can suppose their system to make any such claim, for, as M.
+Paul Vignon truly observes,<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> "La science darwinnienne s'imaginait
+avoir triomph� du Sphinx, alors qu'elle avait simplement d�compos� le
+probl�me dans une monnaie d'�nigmes moins r�barbatives en apparence." As
+has been said, it is far more on account of the vast consequences
+professedly based upon it, as a sure foundation stone, than for its own
+sake, that it has seemed advisable to devote so much attention to the
+study of Darwinism, quite apart from which the whole question of organic
+Evolution still demands consideration.</p>
+
+<p>It seems far more just to conclude with M. Fabre:<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Let us acknowledge that in truth we know nothing about anything, so
+far as ultimate truths are concerned. Scientifically considered
+nature is a riddle to which human curiosity can find no answer.
+Hypothesis follows hypothesis, the ruins of theories are piled one
+on another, but truth ever escapes us. To learn how to remain in
+ignorance may well be the final lesson of wisdom.<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a></p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_204" id="page_204">{204}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XVI" id="XVI"></a>XVI</h3>
+
+<h4>THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">L<small>EAVING</small> the field of speculation and "�tiology," we have now to enquire,
+not to what causes organic Evolution may be attributable, but how far it
+can be shewn to have actually occurred. This can be learnt only from the
+history of life upon earth as disclosed by the evidence of pal�ontology,
+or the geological record, and we are thus brought to the investigation
+of that evidence, by which alone, as Professor Huxley agrees, can the
+truth about Evolution be scientifically or satisfactorily established.
+In his address recently mentioned on occasion of the twenty-first
+birthday of the <i>Origin of Species</i>, having spoken of various advances
+of our knowledge, as in comparative anatomy and embryology, which had
+helped to win acceptance for transformist doctrines, he thus continued:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove
+dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence
+in favour of evolution can be furnished only by pal�ontology. The
+geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must,
+when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_205" id="page_205">{205}</a></span> or a
+negative answer; if evolution has taken place, there will its mark
+be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.</p></div>
+
+<p>This is common sense. Evolution can claim to be a scientific truth, only
+so far as clear evidence is forthcoming that Evolution there has been.
+If the geological record be sufficiently complete to prove or disprove
+its claims, the question is settled for ever. If, on the other hand, the
+record be not complete enough for a conclusive verdict, it is, at least,
+hard to understand the grounds of such a statement as that the doctrine
+of Evolution has long since passed beyond the stage of discussion among
+scientific thinkers;<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> or that of Professor Marsh, that to doubt
+Evolution is to doubt Science; or of Professor Huxley himself<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a>&mdash;"So
+far as the animal world is concerned, Evolution is no longer a
+speculation, but a matter of historical fact."</p>
+
+<p>This historical enquiry is accordingly all-important, and it is one
+which should be easy to undertake without any prepossessions, for it is
+hard to see upon what <i>� priori</i> grounds these could rest. That there
+has been Evolution in one sense of the term is obvious,&mdash;that is to say,
+development of organic types from lower to higher forms, from the
+sea-weed or fungus to the oak or the rose, from the star-fish or the
+coral-insect, to the eagle or to man. The question is, not whether there
+has been such a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_206" id="page_206">{206}</a></span> progressive succession of forms, but whether one form
+has proceeded from another <i>genetically</i>, being produced in the same
+manner as individuals of a species now are. That this has been the case,
+as Professor Huxley tells us in the same address, is the cornerstone of
+evolutionary teaching. He appears indeed to restrict Evolution within
+the limits of classes and groups, but such restriction is so contrary to
+all his principles that the words which seem to imply it can scarcely be
+taken as having any definite significance. Should the appearance of
+different classes and groups require to be severally accounted for, we
+should be landed back in the system of separate creations against which
+he is never tired of inveighing.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The fundamental doctrine of all forms of the theory of evolution
+applied to biology [he says] is that the innumerable species,
+genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is
+peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group,
+from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of
+descent.</p></div>
+
+<p>And, holding as he does that pal�ontology furnishes the necessary
+evidence, he thus continues:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>And, in the view of the facts of geology, it follows that all
+living animals and plants are the lineal descendants of those which
+lived long before the Silurian epoch.</p></div>
+
+<p>Here is a plain issue, and one, as has been said, to be discussed
+without prejudice. That the innumerable<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_207" id="page_207">{207}</a></span> forms of organic life should
+thus have been genetically derived one from another, is no more
+difficult to conceive than that they should have come into existence at
+all. Moreover, it appears to our minds almost a first principle that
+natural law must suffice to account for the phenomena of nature from
+beginning to end, and that any system is self-condemned which finds
+anywhere in these phenomena evidence of a non-natural, or supernatural,
+interposition. Has not such a theologian as Suarez, following St.
+Augustine, laid it down as an axiom<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> that God does not directly
+interfere with the operations of Nature, when He can effect His purposes
+through natural causes? Undoubtedly, too, it is difficult for our minds
+to imagine in what way, except through genetic evolution, the successive
+production of more and more developed types could be effected.</p>
+
+<p>But, as has before been observed, what seems to us probable is not
+therefore proved to be true. What we want are facts, and by facts we
+must be ready to abide. At the same time, it is not very easy to
+understand the supreme importance which evolutionists generally appear
+to attach to the descent of all living creatures from some <i>one</i>
+original, and their abhorrence of the idea that the power, whatever it
+was, which first produced life, may have operated repeatedly, at
+different epochs, to repeat the production. It seems to be assumed that
+this must imply "miracle"<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_208" id="page_208">{208}</a></span> and interruption of the continuity of Nature,
+to admit which is irrational and unscientific. But since life did
+unquestionably once originate somehow, which Science makes no attempt to
+deny, why should it be so improper to suppose that it originated more
+than once, at various times and in various forms, and that,
+consequently, genetic descent with modification, or "Evolution," is not
+the explanation of typic development? As Sir J. W. Dawson writes<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a>
+concerning the oyster tribe, whereof two species are found in the Coal
+Measures (one European and the other American), and a continuous
+succession of species ever since:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>All these species may have proceeded from one origin, by descent
+with modification, or, on the other hand, the same causes which led
+to their origination in the Carboniferous may have operated again
+and again.</p></div>
+
+<p>It must, however, be remembered that, if the theory of genetic descent
+with accumulation of minute modifications be the true explanation of the
+production of new forms, it necessarily follows, that could a complete
+record be forthcoming of the ancestry of any actual species, there would
+be found in that pedigree no distinction of species or genera, for no
+sharply marked lines of limitation would be discoverable. It would be
+like the case of a man who had been photographed every hour of his life
+from birth to old age;&mdash;immense though the difference<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_209" id="page_209">{209}</a></span> might be between
+the two extremes, the gradations of change would at all points pass as
+imperceptibly into one another as do the phases of the moon. This
+consideration is both fundamental and obvious, yet it would seem to be
+almost universally ignored. It appears to be thought that, in order to
+demonstrate the fact of evolution, all that is needed is to find a form
+here and there, in some sense intermediate between others,&mdash;like the
+reptilian birds already mentioned. This would imply that the course of
+Evolution must be like that of an army, making long marches from point
+to point, and traceable only by the remains of its camp-fires: whereas
+it should be as that of a glacier continuously creeping on, and leaving
+its tracks at one point as much as another. What are wanted, therefore,
+as evidence for Evolution, are not isolated specific forms uniting some
+characteristics of those which they are supposed to connect,&mdash;as
+Nelson's men-of-war form a stepping-stone between the vessels of the
+Norsemen and the ironclads of the present day,&mdash;but a series sufficient
+to show, or at least to indicate, that all changes have been gradual and
+insensible, without the introduction at any point of a new element. To
+pursue the illustration, such a new element would be gunpowder or steam
+in the evolution of the battle-ship, for by no mere development could
+bows or javelins produce a cannon, or sailing ships a steamboat.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches
+completeness, its testimony,&mdash;if it is<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_210" id="page_210">{210}</a></span> to be in favour of
+Evolution&mdash;must tend more and more in this direction, and unless, in
+some instance at least, clear evidence be discoverable of the melting of
+one form into another, it cannot possibly be said that we have
+sufficient proof that such a process ever occurred. Mere graduated
+resemblance of isolated forms does not necessarily imply such
+transmutation, as we see for example in the methodical progression of
+shape, exhibited by various crystals, and even more remarkably in the
+affinities which we can recognize among what we know as elementary
+substances.</p>
+
+<p>There is another important point to be borne in mind. According to the
+teaching of Evolutionists such as Darwin or Haeckel,<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> every Species
+has originated from a single ancestor,&mdash;or, as they should rather say,
+from a single pair.</p>
+
+<p>If this were so, it would necessarily follow that every new form,
+originating in some particular spot of earth, would very gradually
+spread thence to other regions, fighting its way along. As Mr. Darwin
+acknowledges,<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> "The development by this<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_211" id="page_211">{211}</a></span> means (i.e. Natural
+Selection) of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one
+progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the
+progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants."</p>
+
+<p>Of this gradual spread of new types there should, at least in some
+cases, be some pal�ontological evidence.</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise by no means easy to understand how species thus generated
+could stand solitary and isolated from kindred forms in the records of
+the earth. The pair of individuals which started a new persistent
+group,&mdash;its members all stamped with the same specific characters, while
+all around were in a state of flux and divergence,&mdash;differed from their
+immediate ancestors, as we have seen, only infinitesimally. They can
+have differed no more from many of their contemporaries, for all the
+lines of descent must ramify afresh in each generation, and so form a
+web rather than anything like a line. It is not very easy to understand
+how a pair here and there struck root and founded a species, while the
+thousands which jostled them round about failed to do so, for the others
+which survived longest must be supposed to have resembled them most
+nearly, and therefore to have participated in their advantages. At
+least, we should expect to find around them the d�bris of the multitude
+they vanquished in the struggle for existence.</p>
+
+<p>We are told, moreover, that, with hardly an exception, the organic forms
+found in a fossil state<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_212" id="page_212">{212}</a></span> must be supposed to be the last of their
+special line of development, which terminated in them; so that neither
+can they be claimed as the direct ancestors of any other forms, fossil
+or living, nor can any others which are actually known be claimed as
+their progenitors. The genealogies supplied for almost all known
+species, extinct or existing, are admittedly conjectural, and as in the
+most famous instance of all, namely the supposed common ancestor of
+simians and men, the links are persistently "missing." Thus M. de
+Quatrefages, speaking of the human pedigree as set forth by Professor
+Haeckel, writes thus:<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>All species, existing or extinct, are said to have been preceded by
+<i>ancestral forms</i> which have disappeared without leaving the
+slightest vestige behind them. The <i>amphioxus</i> itself, which more
+than any other realizes the type of the group it represents, was
+preceded, according to Haeckel, by the <i>provertebrate</i>, which no
+man has ever seen, but of which, nevertheless, the Jena professor
+gives us a figure, and describes the anatomy.</p></div>
+
+<p>Thus the number of forms postulated by the theory of genetic Evolution,
+must have been enormous beyond conception, in comparison with those
+belonging to the numerically insignificant groups which formed the mere
+extremities of branches on the genealogical tree.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_213" id="page_213">{213}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>This being premised, we must ask what Geology has to tell us on the
+subject, and it will be well to begin by briefly recalling the main
+features of the geological record.</p>
+
+<p class="top5">The stratified rocks comprising the crust of the earth, in which fossil
+plants and animals are found embedded, have evidently been formed at
+successive periods, chiefly by the agency of water, each formation
+having begun as a sediment like the mud or ooze at the bottom of our
+oceans and seas. Geological investigation has proved that the
+chronological order of the strata thus deposited can be satisfactorily
+determined, and they are found to divide themselves, in respect of the
+organisms they contain, into three great series, lying above the <i>Azoic</i>
+(or lifeless) rocks, older than them all.</p>
+
+<p>These series, beginning from the bottom, in which order we shall have to
+trace their history, are most conveniently named <i>Primary</i>, <i>Secondary</i>,
+and <i>Tertiary</i>, otherwise termed respectively, <i>Pal&oelig;ozoic</i> ("ancient
+life"), <i>Mesozoic</i> ("middle life"), and <i>Kainozoic</i> ("recent life").
+Each of these again, contains various formations, or as we may call them
+volumes of its chronicle, each of which has its fixed place in order of
+sequence.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, always proceeding from below upwards, in the <i>Primary</i> series,
+commencing with the <i>Laurentian</i>, we find successively the <i>Huronian</i>,
+<i>Cambrian</i>, <i>Silurian</i>, <i>Devonian</i> or <i>Old Red Sandstone</i>,
+<i>Carboniferous</i>, and <i>Permian</i>.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_214" id="page_214">{214}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In the <i>Secondary</i>, the lowest formation is the <i>Triassic</i> or <i>New Red
+Sandstone</i>, followed by the <i>Jurassic</i> or <i>Oolite</i>, and the <i>Cretaceous</i>
+or <i>Chalk</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Finally the <i>Tertiary</i> has three main divisions; the <i>Eocene</i>, or "dawn
+of the recent," <i>Miocene</i>, or "less recent," and <i>Pliocene</i>, or "more
+recent."</p>
+
+<p>Above these comes the series now in progress, variously called,
+<i>Quaternary</i>, <i>Post-Tertiary</i>, and <i>Pleistocene</i>, or "most recent."</p>
+
+<p class="top5">It seems advisable to begin our investigation with the vegetable
+kingdom, as its classification being comparatively simple, the essential
+points of its development are easily followed. We cannot do better than
+start with the summary of its main divisions furnished by Mr.
+Carruthers.<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The vegetable kingdom is divided into sections, according to the
+simplicity or complexity of structure. Associated with plants of
+simple structure we find, as a rule, more elementary organs of
+reproduction. Linnaeus made two great divisions, of flowering
+(<i>Phanerogams</i>) and flowerless plants (<i>Cryptogams</i>).... The higher
+group have flowers, with their stamens and pistils, which produce
+seeds, while the lower group are without flowers and bear spores,
+which are much simpler bodies than seeds. There are seven main
+groups of spore-bearers&mdash;the <i>alg�</i> or water-weeds; the <i>fungi</i> or
+mushroom family; the <i>lichens</i>, which cover old walls and rocks
+with patches of coloured vegetation; the <i>mosses</i> with their green
+leaves and urn-shaped fruit; the <i>ferns</i> with<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_215" id="page_215">{215}</a></span> their large and
+usually much-divided leaves, on the back or edges of which the
+spores are borne; the <i>horsetails</i>, found in wet places, having
+jointed hollow stems and spores produced in little cones; and the
+<i>club-mosses</i>, upright or creeping leafy plants found on our
+mountains. These seven groups may be arranged in two divisions,
+according to the tissues of which they are formed. In the first
+four the whole plant is composed of <i>cells</i>, while in the last
+three a firm <i>vascular skeleton</i> is present. These characters are
+of great importance to the student of fossil plants.... The
+flowering plants are more complex in their structure, and in their
+organs of reproduction. The lowest group of these plants is the
+<i>Gymnosperms</i>, or naked-seeded plants, like our yews and pines. The
+other flowering plants (<i>Angiosperms</i>) have their seeds in a closed
+fruit. These are divided into two sections from characters derived
+from the embryo plant in the seed, depending on whether this minute
+plant has one seed-leaf (<i>cotyledon</i>) or two, and so we have
+<i>Monocotyledons</i> and <i>Dicotyledons</i>. The higher group, or
+dicotyledons, have been arranged into three divisions, according to
+the complexity of the flower. In one large group (<i>Apetalae</i>) the
+pistil and stamens are not surrounded by petals, e.g. in the oak
+and the stinging nettle: superior to them are the plants
+(<i>Monopetalae</i>) in which the petals form a cup, as the
+blue-bell<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> and the gentian, while the highest group
+(<i>Polypetalae</i>) have all the petals separate, as the buttercups and
+roses.<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a></p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_216" id="page_216">{216}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is most important to recollect that on evolutionary principles the
+first representatives of any such classes&mdash;and the same holds of animals
+as well&mdash;must have been generalized forms, representing the type in the
+rough, or, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase, exhibiting by comparison
+with their successors indefinite incoherent homogeneity, as contrasted
+with definite coherent heterogeneity. They should bear the same sort of
+relation to the finished articles worked up by Evolution as did the
+first bone-shaker bicycle to our latest patterns, or the news-sheets of
+Cromwell's time to the <i>Times</i> or <i>Graphic</i> of to-day. On this, as we
+saw in the last chapter, Mr. Darwin strongly insists, confessing at the
+same time that the Geological record alone can establish such progress
+as a fact.</p>
+
+<p>How these various classes of plants appear actually to have come upon
+the scene, Mr. Carruthers relates both in the paper from which we have
+just quoted, and at greater length in the address which he delivered as
+President of the Geologists' Association,<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> to the following effect.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, he declares that although the geological record, at
+least as known to us, is very imperfect, and represents only an
+insignificant fragment of plant-history,</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There is a large series of plant-remains completely<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_217" id="page_217">{217}</a></span> and accurately
+known which supply a fair representation of the great events of
+plant-life that have taken place on the earth since Pal�ozoic
+times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy
+this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.</p></div>
+
+<p>There is&mdash;he goes on to say&mdash;indirect evidence of the existence of
+vegetable life, long before we find any actual remains. Such indirect
+evidence is afforded in the first place by the abundance during this
+period of animal life, needing plants for its sustenance, and secondly
+by the enormous quantity of carbon in the rocks, which must have been
+secreted from the atmosphere by vegetable tissues. There are also
+certain surface marks or impressions occasionally to be found, which are
+probably due to plants of a soft and perishable character like the
+cellular cryptogams, and which although extremely vague and undefined,
+at least do not contradict the evolutionist, who regards them as
+evidence that the <i>Alg�</i> were, as according to him they ought to have
+been, the primeval plants. Mr. Carruthers adds a caution however, which
+can find its application in other instances as well:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>While making this admission in relation to the vegetation of these
+older rocks, I must protest against the practice of completing the
+record of life forms, by filling in particular groups without any
+authority except the writer's impression of an adopted hypothesis,
+and then basing arguments on these assumptions in support of the
+hypothesis which created them. So completely has</p></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 387px;">
+<a href="images/illp218_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp218_sml.jpg" width="387" height="550" alt="VEGETABLE DEVELOPMENT." title="" /></a>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_219" id="page_219">{219}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">phylogenetic [or racial] evolution become the creed of some leading
+naturalists that they unwittingly proceed in this manifestly
+unphilosophical method. But it is a first axiom, though one often
+forgotten, in this as in every scientific enquiry, that no step can
+be made in advance which is not based on fact.</p></div>
+
+<p>After this initial stage, the story becomes much clearer, and at the
+same time less easy to reconcile with evolutionary requirements.</p>
+
+<p>Instead of making their appearance singly and successively, and passing
+imperceptibly one into another, all three groups of Vascular Cryptogams,
+and the Gymnosperms into the bargain, come on the stage together, in the
+Devonian strata; and Monocotyledons in the lower Carboniferous
+immediately following. There is no trace whatever of the development of
+any of these forms from the earlier cellular cryptogams:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>But [says Mr. Carruthers] the evolution of the Vascular Cryptogams,
+and the Phanerogams, from the green seaweeds, through the
+liverworts and mosses, if it took place, must have been carried on
+through a long succession of ages, and by an innumerable series of
+advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the
+early water forms or of the later and still more numerous dry-land
+forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the
+fucoids in the Llandovery rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular
+organisms elsewhere, were, at least, fitted to preserve <i>some</i>
+record of the necessarily rich floras, if they existed, which
+through<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_220" id="page_220">{220}</a></span> immense ages, led by minute steps to the Conifer
+[<i>Gymnosperm</i>] and Monocotyledon of these Pal�ozoic Rocks.</p>
+
+<p>Further, these earliest plants are not generalized forms of the
+various tribes to which they belong, but they are as highly
+specialized as any subsequent representatives of the particular
+group to which they belong, and wherever they differ from later
+plants, it is in the possession of a more perfect organization.</p></div>
+
+<p class="top5">From all which facts Mr. Carruthers thus argues:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The complete absence of intermediate forms, and the sudden and
+contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated
+groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
+countenance from the plant-record of these ancient rocks. The whole
+evidence is against evolution, and there is none for it.<a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>Dicotyledons furnish evidence of especial value. On account of their
+higher organization, they are easily distinguished from both
+Monocotyledons and Gymnosperms; and they present features which clearly
+differentiate them amongst themselves. They did not make their entry
+till after a long interval&mdash;and their remains are therefore to be found
+in strata comparatively recent and better known to us than those of the
+older rocks. It is in the Chalk, the newest of the Secondary or Mesozoic
+formations, that they first exhibit themselves, and they do it in the
+same fashion as their predecessors.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_221" id="page_221">{221}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>When the Dicotyledons appear in the upper cretaceous beds,
+representatives of the three great groups [<i>Apetal�</i>, <i>Monopetal�</i>,
+<i>Polypetal�</i>] appear together in the same deposit. Moreover, these
+divisions are represented, not by generalized types, but by
+differentiated forms, which, during the intervening epochs, have not
+developed even into higher generic groups.</p>
+
+<p class="top5">And, here again, there is no vestige of intermediate species, linking
+dicotyledonous plants with other types.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>No trace of a plant belonging to this great division has yet been
+detected in any earlier stratum [than the upper chalk]. There is no
+evidence whatever for Haeckel's statement that the <i>Apetal�</i>
+probably existed in the Triassic and Jurassic periods.... It cannot
+be doubted that the conditions favourable to the preservation of
+Monocotyledons and Equisetums would have secured the preservation
+of some of the <i>Apetal�</i>, had they existed. This absence can be
+accounted for only on the supposition that they formed no part of
+the then existing vegetation. And in the deposits older than the
+Trias, or in any subsequent deposits, no intermediate form has been
+detected,&mdash;no Gymnosperm or Monocotyledon which exhibits in any
+point of its structure a modification towards the more highly
+organized Dicotyledon.</p></div>
+
+<p class="top5">Nor, on the same authority, is this all.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>It is equally important in its bearing on the hypothesis of genetic
+evolution that the generic groups above named<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_222" id="page_222">{222}</a></span> have persisted from
+the first known appearance of Dicotyledons, throughout the whole of
+the intervening ages, and still hold their places unchanged among
+the existing forms of vegetation. The persistence of generic and
+specific types, and the certain knowledge we possess of the life of
+many existing species of Phanerogams and Cryptogams which have come
+down through the Glacial Epoch, have not been sufficiently
+considered in their bearing on the hypothesis.</p></div>
+
+<p>We have already seen something of an example which illustrates this
+point in a remarkable manner,&mdash;that of <i>Salix polaris</i>, the willow which
+has so obstinately preserved its specific identity amid great stress of
+circumstances. It belongs to a very variable genus&mdash;one in which if
+anywhere evidence of genetic development might be looked for. Yet it is
+found that since a period prior to the great Ice Age, or Glacial epoch,
+it has remained absolutely unchanged. At such a rate, we cannot but ask,
+how long would Evolution take to get back to the generalized type-form,
+or common ancestor, of the genus <i>Salix</i>, and then to that of the Order
+<i>Salicineae</i>, which includes poplars as well as willows. "The Ordinal
+form, if it ever existed, must necessarily be much older than the period
+of the upper Cretaceous rocks, that is than the period to which the
+earliest known Dicotyledons belong."</p>
+
+<p>And it is obvious that when we had got back to the parental stock of the
+willow tribe, we should still, as evolutionists, be separated by a gulf
+still vastly greater from the common ancestor of all<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_223" id="page_223">{223}</a></span> Dicotyledons, of
+oaks, apple-trees, primroses, and daisies no less than of willows and
+poplars.</p>
+
+<p>The significance of all these various facts is thus summed up:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The whole evidence supplied by fossil plants is, then, opposed to
+the hypothesis of genetic evolution, and especially the sudden and
+simultaneous appearance of the most highly organized plants at
+particular stages in the past history of the globe, and the entire
+absence amongst fossil plants of any forms intermediate between
+existing classes or families. The facts of pal�ontological botany
+are opposed to Evolution, but they testify to Development, to
+progression from lower to higher types. The cellular Alg� preceded
+the Vascular Cryptogams and the Gymnosperms of the Newer Pal�ozoic
+rocks, and these were speedily followed by Monocotyledons, and, at
+a much later period, by Dicotyledons. But the earliest
+representatives of these various sections of the vegetable kingdom
+were not generalized forms, but as highly organized as recent
+forms, and in many cases more highly organized: and the divisions
+were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as
+decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.</p></div>
+
+<p>So much for the vegetable world. As for the animal, although the number
+and complexity of its divisions makes it less easy to present so
+complete a sketch in these moderate limits, the features of its history
+are very similar. As Sir J. W. Dawson recounts it:<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_224" id="page_224">{224}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 393px;">
+<a href="images/illp224_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp224_sml.jpg" width="393" height="550" alt="ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT." title="" /></a>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_225" id="page_225">{225}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In the Cambrian age, we obtain a vast and varied accession of living
+things, which appear at once, as if by a sudden and simultaneous
+production of many kinds of animals. Here we find evidence that the sea
+swarmed with creatures near akin to those which still inhabit it, and
+nearly as varied.... Had we been able to drop our dredge into the
+Cambrian or Silurian ocean, we should have brought up representatives of
+all the leading types of invertebrate life that exist in the modern
+seas&mdash;different, it is true, in details of structure from those now
+existing, but constructed on the same principles, and filling the same
+places in nature.</p>
+
+<p>In the latter half of the Pal�ozoic we find a number of higher forms
+breaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of the
+early Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great
+variety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, singularly
+enough, belonging in many cases to groups now very rare; while the
+commoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, Batrachian
+Reptiles now abound, some of them very high in the sub-class to which
+they belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and millipedes appear as well
+as land-snails: and this not in one locality only, but over the whole
+northern hemisphere.... Nor do they show any signs of an unformed or
+imperfect state.... The compound eyes and filmy wings of insects, the
+teeth, bones, and scales of batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly
+finished, and many quite as complex and elegant, as the animals of the
+present day.</p>
+
+<p>This wonderful Pal�ozoic age was, however, but a temporary state of the
+earth. It passed away, and was<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_226" id="page_226">{226}</a></span> replaced by the Mesozoic, emphatically
+the age of Reptiles, when animals of that type attained to colossal
+magnitude, to variety of function and structure, to diversity of habitat
+in sea and on land, altogether unexampled in their degraded descendants
+of modern times.... Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords
+appeared a few small and lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming
+age.<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> Birds also made their appearance.</p>
+
+<p>The Kainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of Mammals and of Man. In it the
+great reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are replaced on
+land and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with those now
+living, though differing as to genera and species. So greatly indeed did
+mammalian life abound in this period that in the middle part of the
+Tertiary most of the leading groups were represented by more numerous
+species than at present, while many types then existing<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_227" id="page_227">{227}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p class="nind">have now no representatives. At the close of this great and
+wonderful procession of living beings comes Man himself&mdash;the last
+and crowning triumph of creation the head, thus far, of life on the
+earth.</p></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 550px;">
+<a href="images/illp226_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp226_sml.jpg" width="550" height="329" alt="DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.
+
+In the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested
+in higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of
+new forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the
+medium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
+
+The Supposed line of continuous Evolution, indicates the gradual
+course which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian
+principles, by accumulation of minute differences in successive
+generations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance
+of highly differentiated types, as spoken of by pal�ontologists.
+
+[To face page 227." title="" /></a>
+</div>
+<p class="caption">DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.
+
+In the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested
+in higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of
+new forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the
+medium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
+
+The Supposed line of continuous Evolution, indicates the gradual
+course which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian
+principles, by accumulation of minute differences in successive
+generations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance
+of highly differentiated types, as spoken of by pal�ontologists.
+
+[To face page 227.]</p>
+
+<p>It must be sufficient to quote one other remark:<a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time
+one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another....
+On the other hand, we constantly find species replaced by others
+entirely new, and this without any transition. The two classes of
+facts are essentially different, though often confounded by
+evolutionists; and though it is possible to point out in the newer
+geological formations some genera and species allied to others
+which have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms
+proceeded from the earlier, still, as the connecting links cannot
+be found, this is mere supposition, not scientific certainty.
+Further, it proceeds on the principle of arbitrary choice of
+certain forms out of many, without any evidence of genetic
+connexion.</p></div>
+
+<p>Having given a tabular view of Geological periods and Life-epochs,
+similar to those presented above, our author remarks:<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If in the table above we were to represent diagrammatically the
+development of animals and plants, this would appear not as a
+smooth and continuous stream, but as a series of great waves, each
+rising abruptly, and then descending and flowing on at a lower
+level along with the remains of those preceding it.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_228" id="page_228">{228}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>And here may be noticed an observation made amongst others by the Comte
+de Saporta<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> on the remarkable parallelism of Animal and Vegetable
+development. After a period in which these kingdoms were respectively
+represented by aquatic <i>Alg�</i> and <i>Protozoa</i>, land animals and land
+plants appear to have come in much at the same epoch; and afterwards
+dicotyledonous plants immediately preceded the advent of mammals.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Mivart is of like mind with the others we have heard. "The mass of
+pal�ontological evidence," he writes,<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> "is indeed overwhelmingly
+against minute and gradual modification." He points out, with the <i>North
+British</i> Reviewer so frequently quoted, that had the later forms of life
+descended from the earlier, through such a series of imperceptible
+gradations as is imagined, the probability would be that no two fossil
+specimens would be exactly alike, whereas in fact numbers are found of
+certain particular patterns, and none whatever between them, fossil
+animals and plants falling naturally into species, genera, families, and
+other categories just like those of the present day.</p>
+
+<p>It is this total absence of graduated series, linking different forms
+together, that is the great and fundamental difficulty in the way of
+genetic evolution. Yet this seems very seldom to be realized, and it
+seems constantly to be assumed that in order to establish the genetic
+continuity of two creatures<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_229" id="page_229">{229}</a></span> no more is required than to discover
+another standing more or less between them. Thus in the most famous of
+all instances, how often do we hear of "the missing link" between man
+and ape,&mdash;as though should a generalized form be disclosed, which might
+be considered a common ancestor, the question of man's simian origin
+would be finally settled. In the same way, as we have seen, the
+existence of birds with reptilian features, is taken by some as
+conclusive proof that birds and reptiles have descended from one stock.
+But what is most imperatively wanted, is persistently wanting,&mdash;namely
+some evidence of a series in which one form passes to another, as in a
+dissolving view. And yet, genetic evolutionists must suppose such series
+to have been the universal rule throughout the whole course of life on
+earth.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Assuredly [writes M. de Quatrefages]<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> is it not singularly
+unfortunate for the evolutionary theory that so many facts which
+tell against it should have been preserved in the scraps of
+Nature's great book which remain to us, and that invariably those
+which would have told in its favour were recorded in lost volumes
+and missing leaves?</p></div>
+
+<p>In some particular instances the absence of any trace of intermediate
+forms is especially significant. The tribe of Bats, for instance, is a
+very singular one. The wings, in which form the fore-limbs are
+specialized, represent the same elements as our own<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_230" id="page_230">{230}</a></span> hands; and other
+modifications of the same members have produced the paws of cats and
+dogs, the hoofs of horses and cattle, and the flippers of whales and
+porpoises,&mdash;to mention no others. What countless hosts of the Bat's
+ancestors must have lived and died while by accumulation of minute
+differences the primitive generalized limb whence all these diverse
+forms originated, was being turned into a wing capable of flight. Yet of
+all these no vestige is to be discovered. "Whenever the remains of bats
+have been found," says Mr. Mivart,<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> "they have presented the exact
+type of existing forms." The same, he tells us, holds good of other
+flying creatures&mdash;birds and pterodactyles&mdash;(or flying lizards&mdash;now
+wholly extinct). No trace of any of these is forthcoming while their
+wings were in the making. "Yet had such a slow mode of origin as
+Darwinians [and genetic evolutionists generally] contend for, operated
+exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that bats, birds,
+and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a
+single relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different
+forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional
+condition!"</p>
+
+<p>There are other creatures which stand in solitary isolation, with no
+fragments of a bridge to connect them with the general body. Such is the
+rattlesnake's family, whose pedigree, Mr. Mivart declares,<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> we
+cannot even imagine&mdash;"The ancestors<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_231" id="page_231">{231}</a></span> of the rattlesnake are beyond our
+mental vision."</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>But the number of forms [says the same author]<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> represented by
+many individuals, yet by <i>no transitional ones</i>, is so great that
+only two or three can be selected as examples. Thus those
+remarkable fossil reptiles, the Icthyosauria and Plesiosauria,
+extended, through the secondary period, probably over the greater
+part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met
+with in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again,
+with their modern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant
+forms alone have been found, but no series of transitional ones
+indicating minutely the line of descent. This group, the whales, is
+a very marked one, and it is curious, on Darwinian principles, that
+so few instances tending to indicate its mode of origin should have
+presented themselves. Here, as in the bats, we might surely expect
+that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages of its
+development would have been left.</p></div>
+
+<p>Professor W. C. Williamson likewise remarks<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> on these <i>lacun�</i> which
+persistently occur at crucial points:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If [he writes] these generic types [of plants] first came before us
+in such clearly defined forms, when and where did the transitional
+states make their appearance? The extreme evolutionists constantly
+affirm of those<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_232" id="page_232">{232}</a></span> who believe in special creation that they
+"habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote
+from human observation," and that "the conception survives only in
+connexion with imagined places where the order of organic phenomena
+is unknown." It is legitimate to retort upon them that they as
+habitually resort to "strata now covered by the sea"&mdash;to rocks
+"from which all traces of such fossils as they probably included
+have been obliterated by igneous action," and to mysterious
+"migrations from pre-existing continents to continents that were
+step by step emerging from the ocean." Unfortunately, so far as the
+vegetable kingdom is concerned, we have as yet failed to discover
+any traces of these mysterious strata or hypothetical continents in
+which the transitions from one plant-type to another were being
+brought about. The believers in special creations are not the only
+reasoners who have made free use of hypothetical possibilities.</p></div>
+
+<p>He presently adds:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We have no evidence that unaided Nature has produced a single new
+type during the historic period. We can only conclude that the
+wonderful outburst of genetic activity which characterized the
+Tertiary age was due to some unknown factor, which then operated
+with an energy to which the earth was a stranger, both previously
+and subsequently. The knowledge of this factor is what we need in
+order to perfect our philosophy; and until we obtain that
+knowledge, many things must remain unaccounted for, so far as
+primeval vegetation is concerned.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_233" id="page_233">{233}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>And elsewhere Professor Williamson reiterates the same idea:<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>I contend stoutly [he says] that, however numerous may be the facts
+that sustain the doctrine of evolution (and I am prepared to admit
+that there are many that do so in a remarkable manner), this
+unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition of some
+factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the
+evolutionist school.</p></div>
+
+<p>In the record of fossil fishes he finds some features which are
+particularly hard to harmonize with any theory of genetic
+evolution.<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> Amongst the very earliest representatives of this class,
+even in the upper Silurian, are found remains of sharks, in his opinion
+the highest order of fish, and in the Devonian and Carboniferous above,
+of <i>Ganoids</i> armour clad, like the sturgeon. But nowhere below the Chalk
+do we find a single scale of <i>Cycloids</i> or <i>Ctenoids</i>, which in regard
+alike of the scales themselves, of the nervous system and of the
+reproductive organs, are much below the sharks, and not above the
+<i>Ganoids</i>. To complicate matters still more, however, the skeleton of
+<i>Cycloids</i> and <i>Ctenoids</i> is more highly organized than that of the
+others, and it is thus equally impossible to describe them as
+progressive or as retrogressive types.<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a></p>
+
+<p>Over and above this absence of intermediate or link forms, the witnesses
+who have been cited insist<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_234" id="page_234">{234}</a></span> on the fact that those earliest found are
+not simple or generalized representatives of their respective types, as
+the theory of genetic evolution requires them to be, but are as
+perfectly finished and specialized as those appearing in later ages. To
+their testimony on this point may be added that of Professor Huxley, who
+while frankly confessing that he would be glad enough to find evidence
+in favour of such progressive modification, was constrained by his love
+of scientific truth to bear witness as follows:<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure&mdash;positive
+evidence&mdash;fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification
+towards a less embryonic, or less generalized type, in a great many
+groups of animals of long-continued geological existence. In these
+groups there is abundant evidence of variation&mdash;none of what is
+generally understood as progression; and if the known geological
+record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the
+whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily
+progressive development can stand, for the numerous orders and
+families cited afford no trace of such a process.</p></div>
+
+<p>So again he declared at a later period<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> summarizing what he had said
+previously:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>In answer to the question, What does an impartial survey of the
+positively ascertained truths of pal�ontology<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_235" id="page_235">{235}</a></span> testify in relation
+to the common doctrines of progressive modification?... I reply: It
+negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of
+such modification, or demonstrates such modification as has
+occurred to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that
+modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earliest
+members of a long-existing group were more generalized in structure
+than the later ones.</p></div>
+
+<p>He went on, however, to say, on this latter occasion, that discoveries
+made in the interval afforded much ground for softening "the Brutus-like
+severity" which eight years before he had exhibited in this regard, by
+disclosing such evidence as he had declared to be lacking. From the
+samples, however, which he produced, it does not appear that this fresh
+testimony comes to very much; and in view of the observations with which
+he accompanied the exposition, it would seem that in only one instance
+did it appear to himself thoroughly satisfactory.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Every fossil [he said]<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> which takes an intermediate place
+between forms of life already known, may be said, so far as it is
+intermediate, to be evidence in favour of Evolution, inasmuch as it
+shows a possible road by which Evolution may have taken place. But
+the mere discovery of such a form does not, in itself, prove that
+Evolution took place by and through it, nor does<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_236" id="page_236">{236}</a></span> it constitute
+more than presumptive evidence in favour of Evolution in general.</p>
+
+<p>It is easy<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> to accumulate probabilities&mdash;hard to make out some
+particular case in such a way that it will stand rigorous
+criticism. After much search, however, I think that such a case is
+to be made out in favour of the pedigree of the Horse.</p></div>
+
+<p>Of this famous instance we have already heard, and since it will be
+examined at length in the following chapter, we will not dwell further
+upon it here.</p>
+
+<p>So obvious indeed is this deficiency for evolutionary requirements of
+the Geological record, that Professor Haeckel attempts to supply the
+want by boldly interpolating a number of periods during which the
+metamorphoses occurred, but of which no record was left. He assumes that
+between the epochs of depression, when fossils were deposited beneath
+the water, there were other epochs of elevation when the land was dry
+and no deposits could occur, and he supposes that the abrupt changes of
+flora and fauna exhibited by successive formations, are due to the lapse
+of time of which we have no organic record in what he styles these
+"Ante-periods."</p>
+
+<p>As to this summary mode of loosing the Gordian knot, it will be
+sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's verdict: "I confess this is
+wholly incredible to me."<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> And although in his favourable review of
+Haeckel's book<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> he showed himself far more tolerant of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_237" id="page_237">{237}</a></span> gratuitous
+speculations, than his utterances on other occasions might have led us
+to expect, upon this point he declared: "I fundamentally and entirely
+disagree with Professor Haeckel."</p>
+
+<p>We may sum up the testimonies of which the above are representative in
+the words of two authorities by no means hostile to Evolution. M. Edmond
+Perrier,<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> having shewn how this theory is suggested by the
+successive developments of type, and how the phenomena of organic life
+seem to harmonize with it, thus continues:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Unfortunately, when we descend to details, such pal�ontological
+gaps present themselves that every sort of objection is possible.
+The chain which morphology has allowed us to piece together is
+continually snapped when we essay to travel back into the past....
+The art of distinguishing realities from phantoms of the
+imagination is what has made modern science so great and so mighty.
+She is strong enough to win honour by avowing ignorance, and
+because men see her always determined to speak the truth, they
+gradually realize that she is not dangerous.</p></div>
+
+<p>And in his Presidential address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1902,
+Professor S. H. Vines thus expressed himself as to the genealogical
+table of organic life, which ever since the doctrine of Evolution was
+accepted, it has been sought to construct:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Though here and there fragments of the mosaic<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_238" id="page_238">{238}</a></span> seem to have been
+successfully pieced together, the main outlines, even, of the great
+picture are as yet but dimly discernible.</p>
+
+<p>The fact that organic Evolution should have proceeded so far as it
+has within such limits of time as may reasonably be allowed,
+admits, to my mind, of no other interpretation than that variation
+is not indeterminate, but, as Lamarck and N�geli have urged, there
+must exist in living matter a certain inherent tendency or bias in
+favour of variation in the higher direction. It is this tendency or
+bias that I venture to regard as the primordial factor.</p></div>
+
+<p>But it is precisely such an inherent tendency of organic life to develop
+on predetermined lines, which Darwinians and other advocates of
+Evolution by the agency of physical forces alone, vehemently repudiate
+as fatal to their whole system.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>[Since Professor Williamson wrote, the opinion has been adopted
+that for the very reason which induced him to place the Sharks
+above the <i>Cycloids</i> and <i>Ctenoids</i>, their relative positions
+should be reversed. The Sharks being a more "generalized" type,
+with features more akin to those of land-dwelling reptiles, and the
+others more "specialized" for purely aquatic conditions, the
+latter, it is argued, are a higher evolutionary product. As a
+necessary corollary it is assumed that vertebrate life originated,
+not, as had been supposed, in the sea, but in swamps or lagoons on
+the shore-line. It must, however, remain a question how far the
+facility with which theories can thus be modified according to
+requirements, is calculated to inspire confidence in them.]</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_239" id="page_239">{239}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XVII" id="XVII"></a>XVII</h3>
+
+<h4>"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">W<small>E</small> have heard Mr. Carruthers' declaration, based upon his survey of
+pal�ontological botany, "The whole evidence is against Evolution, and
+there is none in favour of it."</p>
+
+<p>Remarkably enough, at almost the same period<a name="FNanchor_274_274" id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> Professor Huxley
+concluded a discussion of pal�ontological evidence with a precisely
+contrary pronouncement&mdash;"The whole evidence is in favour of Evolution,
+and there is none against it." On other occasions, also, he distinctly
+maintained that it is just this line of enquiry which conclusively
+establishes Evolution as no longer a theory, but an historical fact. To
+such a conclusion, he tells us,<a name="FNanchor_275_275" id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> "an acute and critical-minded
+investigator is led by the facts of pal�ontology;"&mdash;and, again, "If the
+doctrine of Evolution had not existed, pal�ontologists must have
+invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of
+the remains of the Tertiary mammalia."</p>
+
+<p>Such declarations clearly challenge consideration,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_240" id="page_240">{240}</a></span> especially when it
+is remembered how strict were the views which Professor Huxley professed
+as to the necessity of proofs for our beliefs,&mdash;"that it is wrong for a
+man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
+unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
+certainty."<a name="FNanchor_276_276" id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a></p>
+
+<p>We therefore turn naturally to his lectures on Evolution, wherein he
+treats the pal�ontological argument <i>ex professo</i>, and we find that his
+verdict is based upon a few selected instances, such as that of the
+reptilian birds already mentioned, which he considers favourable to
+Evolution, and one which he terms <i>demonstrative</i>,&mdash;namely that of the
+Horse. This he treats in some detail; in regard of it he delivers the
+positive judgment which we have just heard, and it therefore in a
+special manner demands our attention.</p>
+
+<p>As furnishing evidence for the history of the horse, two features are of
+special importance, his limbs, and his teeth. Of these we may confine
+our attention to the former, as being, at once, sufficient for our
+purpose, and within the scope of ordinary observation.</p>
+
+<p>The horse family, or <i>Equidae</i>, belong to the tribe of Ungulates, or
+hoofed animals, some points of whose anatomy require to be considered in
+relation to our own.</p>
+
+<p>Taking first the fore-limbs. What we call the "knee" of a horse is in
+reality the wrist,&mdash;the true<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_241" id="page_241">{241}</a></span> knee, or rather elbow, being what we call
+the "shoulder." Below the knee comes the "cannon bone," corresponding to
+the middle bone of the hand, and below it the "pastern," "coronary," and
+"coffin" bones, representing the joints of the solitary middle-finger,
+while the hoof is its greatly enlarged and thickened nail. Similarly, in
+the hind-limbs; the "hock" is veritably the ankle, and again the lateral
+digits are suppressed, the middle toe alone remaining.</p>
+
+<p>It thus appears that an Ungulate such as the horse, is an extreme
+modification of the general Mammalian plan, his members being highly
+specialized for a certain kind of work. His leg and hoof, as the theory
+of genetic Evolution declares, have been gradually fashioned to their
+present shape from an original limb in the common Mammalian ancestor,
+which by other modifications has equally produced the totally different
+members possessed by other mammals.</p>
+
+<p>That the horse is descended from a race bearing more than one digit on
+each extremity, seems to be indicated by the splint-bones which are
+found on the cannon-bone of both fore and hind legs, and which represent
+the second and fourth finger and toe, and also by recorded occurrences
+of polydactyle horses, one of which has a distinguished place in history
+as Julius C�sar's charger.<a name="FNanchor_277_277" id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_242" id="page_242">{242}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>That the animal as we now know him is the lineal descendant of various
+other ungulates, in whom the digits were gradually reduced from the
+normal number of five, to their present solitary representative,
+Professor Huxley and other Evolutionists hold to be demonstrated by the
+discovery in due succession of various equine specimens, in which this
+diminution is gradually exhibited.</p>
+
+<p>The remains of these animals are all found in <i>Tertiary</i> strata, of
+which, it will be remembered, there are three great divisions, the
+<i>Eocene</i>, <i>Miocene</i>, and <i>Pliocene</i>, the first named being the most
+ancient, and the last the most recent.</p>
+
+<p>The genus <i>Equus</i>, or at least our modern horse, <i>Equus caballus</i>, can
+be traced no further back than the <i>Post-tertiary</i> period. The
+succession of forms leading up thither commences at the bottom of the
+<i>Eocene</i>, and extends to the upper <i>Pliocene</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Following Professor Huxley's guidance, we trace the pedigree downwards,
+thus:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Firstly, there is the true horse. Next we have the American
+Pliocene form, <i>Pliohippus</i>. In the conformation of its limbs it
+presents some very slight deviations from the ordinary horse. Then
+comes <i>Protohippus</i>, which represents the European <i>Hipparion</i>,
+having one large digit and two small ones on each foot.... But it
+is more valuable than <i>Hipparion</i>, for certain peculiarities tend
+to show that the latter is rather a member of a collateral branch,
+than a form in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward
+order in time, is the <i>Miohippus</i>, [<i>Miocene</i>], which corresponds
+pretty nearly<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_243" id="page_243">{243}</a></span> with the <i>Anchitherium</i> of Europe. It presents three
+complete toes&mdash;one large median and two smaller lateral ones; and
+there is a rudiment of that digit which answers to the little
+finger of the human hand. The European record stops here: in the
+American Tertiaries, the series of ancestral equine forms is
+continued into the Eocene. An older Miocene form, <i>Mesohippus</i>, has
+three toes in front, with a large splint-like rudiment representing
+the little finger, and three toes behind. The <i>radius</i> and <i>ulna</i>,
+<i>tibia</i> and <i>fibula</i>,<a name="FNanchor_278_278" id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> are distinct. Most important of all is
+the <i>Orohippus</i>, from the Eocene. Here we find four complete toes
+on the front limb, three toes on the hind-limb, a well developed
+<i>ulna</i>, a well developed <i>fibula</i>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Here, when the lecture which we are considering was delivered, the
+series terminated:&mdash;and upon the facts as above given Professor Huxley
+thus commented:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge
+extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely
+that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
+principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies
+us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene
+deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have
+yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four
+complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
+front, with probably a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_244" id="page_244">{244}</a></span> rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind
+foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be
+more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in
+which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole
+series must have taken its origin.</p></div>
+
+<p>Finally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the
+lecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals,
+<i>Eohippus</i>, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might
+first be looked for. "This," adds Professor Huxley, "is what I mean by
+demonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is
+in favour of Evolution, and there is none against it."</p>
+
+<p class="top5">That these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all
+attention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are
+conclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many
+considerations require to be carefully weighed.</p>
+
+<p>(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other
+instances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really
+wanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species
+gradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have
+heard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated,
+for each belongs to a different <i>genus</i>,<a name="FNanchor_279_279" id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> which shows that the
+differences<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_245" id="page_245">{245}</a></span> between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther
+apart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for
+both of these are classed in the genus <i>equus</i>,&mdash;or than the Bengal
+tiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus
+<i>felis</i>.</p>
+
+<p>These various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and
+if they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway,
+we ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those
+particular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very
+distinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge,
+yet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found,
+or, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were,
+can it be said that the story of the fossil <i>equidae</i> furnishes
+convincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities
+these various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that
+affinities necessarily imply descent.</p>
+
+<p>There is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that
+Professor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of <i>Eohippus</i>,
+and specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present.
+In the same way, Professor Marsh<a name="FNanchor_280_280" id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> anticipates and describes a still
+more remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_246" id="page_246">{246}</a></span>
+found, he has provided an appellation, <i>Hippops</i>. But if either
+Professor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted
+that we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary
+outpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life
+whereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence
+that the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something
+analogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their
+discovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that
+their actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that
+it is very definitely fixed.</p>
+
+<p>(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of
+which Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him,
+<i>Equus caballus</i>, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced
+to America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been
+horses in America previously,&mdash;belonging to the genus <i>Equus</i>, perhaps
+even to the species <i>caballus</i>,&mdash;they had, however, been long extinct,
+and no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree
+given by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals,
+to which category belong all whose names terminate in <i>-hippus</i>, and
+these cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European
+horse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_247" id="page_247">{247}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,
+beginning with the <i>Eohippus</i> of the Eocene&mdash;an animal the size of
+a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind&mdash;and these have
+been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of
+America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely
+on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the
+modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits
+often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other
+hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to
+<i>Pal�otherium</i>&mdash;an entirely different form&mdash;by just as likely
+indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse
+belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too
+many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,
+and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American
+horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,
+descendants of <i>Pal�otherium</i>, not of <i>Eohippus</i>; but if we had not
+known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to
+prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple
+consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are
+not of the nature of scientific evidence.</p></div>
+
+<p>(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much
+diversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines
+of ancestry favoured&mdash;(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited
+in our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr.
+Mivart,<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> (4) By<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_248" id="page_248">{248}</a></span> Mr. Lydekker,<a name="FNanchor_283_283" id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> (5) In The <i>Evolution of the
+Horse</i>, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This
+last gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of
+the American Horse alone.</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" summary=""
+style="font-size:small;">
+
+<tr><th>&nbsp;</th>
+<th style="border-bottom:1px solid black;
+border-top:1px solid black;"><i>Huxley.</i> </th>
+<th class="bdtt"> <i>British Museum Case.</i> </th>
+<th class="bdtt"> <i>Mivart.</i> </th>
+<th class="bdtt"> <i>Lydekker.</i> </th>
+<th class="bdtt"> <i>American Museum.</i></th></tr>
+
+<tr><td rowspan="3">&nbsp;</td>
+<td>Equus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Equus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Equus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Equus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Equus</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Pliohippus </td>
+<td class="bdlft">&nbsp; </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> &nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> &nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft">&nbsp;</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Protohippus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Hipparion </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Hipparion <br />Protohippus</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Hipparion <br />Protohippus</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Hipparion <br />Hypohippus</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td rowspan="2" valign="top">
+<span style="font-size:300%;">{</span></td><td>Miohippus </td><td class="bdlft">&nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Anchitherium</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Anchitherium </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Merychippus</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Anchitherium</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Anchitherium </td>
+<td class="bdlft">Pachynolophus</td>
+<td class="bdlft">Anchilophus<br />(<i>form allied to</i>)</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Mesohippus<br />(<i>2 species</i>)</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td rowspan="3">&nbsp;</td>
+<td>Mesohippus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> Protohippus </td>
+<td class="bdlft">&nbsp; </td>
+<td class="bdlft">&nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft">Epihippus</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td>Orohippus </td>
+<td class="bdlft"> {Mesohippus<br />(<i>2 species</i>) </td>
+<td class="bdlft">&nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft"> &nbsp;</td>
+<td class="bdlft">Protorohippus</td></tr>
+
+<tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black;">Eohippus </td>
+<td class="bdltbt"> Hyracotherium </td>
+<td class="bdltbt"> Phenacodus </td>
+<td class="bdltbt">Hyracotherium<br />Systemodon </td>
+<td class="bdltbt"> Eohippus<br /><i>An undiscovered ancestor</i><br />(Hippops)
+</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>It will be observed, that whereas <i>Hipparion</i> is disallowed by Professor
+Huxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other
+genealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of <i>Equus</i>. Also that
+in all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used
+indifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that
+there is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would
+likewise appear that even the existence of <i>Eohippus</i> himself is not
+beyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name
+always has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities
+give an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still
+remains to be discovered.</p>
+
+<p>There is something even more remarkable.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_249" id="page_249">{249}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 406px;">
+<a href="images/illp249_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp249_sml.jpg" width="406" height="550" alt="DEVELOPMENT OF EQUID�." title="" /></a>
+<span class="caption">DEVELOPMENT OF EQUID�.</span>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_250" id="page_250">{250}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Huxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was
+delivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had
+declared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other
+genealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something
+really satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870&mdash;which he thus indicated
+as scientifically established&mdash;was totally different from that of 1876,
+and was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter.
+In 1870 the ancestry presented for <i>Equus</i> consisted of <i>Hipparion</i>,
+<i>Anchitherium</i>, and <i>Plagiolophus</i>. Of these, <i>Hipparion</i> was in 1876
+specifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: <i>Anchitherium</i> was
+displaced by <i>Miohippus</i>, and although we are told that these creatures
+"correspond pretty nearly," the Horse cannot be descended from <i>both</i>,
+especially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally
+<i>Plagiolophus</i> disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing
+could more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that
+an authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley
+should thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after
+information to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures
+happened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of <i>Hipparion</i> to ancestral
+equine rank to be beyond dispute. "No one will deny," he wrote,<a name="FNanchor_284_284" id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a>
+"that the <i>Hipparion</i> is intermediate between the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_251" id="page_251">{251}</a></span> existing horse and
+certain older ungulate forms." Yet, as we see, this has been denied by
+his champion Huxley himself.</p>
+
+<p>(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various
+equine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed.
+As a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton,
+so that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really
+like, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to
+him. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of
+these as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse
+descended from it. Thus in <i>Hippidium</i>, an American genus closely allied
+to <i>Equus</i>, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate
+in claws.<a name="FNanchor_285_285" id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> One species of <i>Hippidium</i> is known only by a solitary
+tooth. Of <i>Hyracotherium</i> only the skull has been found: of <i>Orohippus</i>
+only parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of <i>Epihippus</i>, "only
+incomplete specimens."<a name="FNanchor_286_286" id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking
+of the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses
+himself:<a name="FNanchor_287_287" id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated
+the three animals [<i>Anchitherium</i>, <i>Hipparion</i>, and <i>Equus</i>] are
+filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before
+I can arrive at the<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_252" id="page_252">{252}</a></span> conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is
+proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It
+appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the
+testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I
+must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not
+be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate
+transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every
+part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the
+stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....
+Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual
+shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.</p></div>
+
+<p>(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant
+particular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's
+ancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them
+that all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly
+assists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent.
+But as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the
+remoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. <i>Hyracotherium</i>,
+for instance, was "about the size of a hare,"<a name="FNanchor_288_288" id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> and according to
+Professor Cope, <i>Orohippus</i> was the exact counterpart of this diminutive
+steed. The hypothetical <i>Hippops</i>, which Professor Marsh locates in the
+lower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,<a name="FNanchor_289_289" id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> now "be
+predicated with<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_253" id="page_253">{253}</a></span>
+ <span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_254" id="page_254">{254}</a></span>certainty;" and amongst other things it "probably was
+not larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller." Sometimes, so far as
+evidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was
+deterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus
+<i>Epihippus</i>, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than
+<i>Protorohippus</i>, found in the Middle Eocene; "but," says the American
+pamphlet,<a name="FNanchor_290_290" id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> "no doubt there were others of larger size living at the
+same time," which will scarcely be called convincing.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 550px;">
+<a href="images/illp253_lg.jpg">
+<img src="images/illp253_sml.jpg" width="550" height="363" alt="&quot;THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,&quot; FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.
+
+&quot;THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,&quot; FROM HUXLEY&#39;S LECTURES ON EVOLUTION." title="" /></a>
+<span class="caption">&quot;THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,&quot; FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.
+
+&quot;THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,&quot; FROM HUXLEY&#39;S LECTURES ON EVOLUTION.</span>
+</div>
+
+<p>(vi.) Worthy of notice also is "the remarkable circumstance that in the
+line of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of
+generically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries
+of both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that
+on both continents a parallel development of the same genera has
+simultaneously taken place."<a name="FNanchor_291_291" id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> And, as we have seen, while the
+American pedigree must have been entirely different from the European,
+it terminates equally in both continents with the genus <i>Equus</i>, if not
+actually with <i>Equus caballus</i>.<a name="FNanchor_292_292" id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a> But, on any mechanical system of
+evolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along
+separate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.<a name="FNanchor_293_293" id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> Mr.
+Darwin did not <span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_255" id="page_255">{255}</a></span>conceive it possible that the same species should be
+produced twice over, "if even the very same conditions of life, organic
+and inorganic should recur,"<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> and the production of genuine horses,
+not only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different
+ancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr.
+Mivart,<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> "it follows from this generic identity, that classification
+will be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard,
+not the origin but the <i>outcome</i> of development, whether of the
+individual or the species."</p>
+
+<p>(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of
+the above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound
+and substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last
+ungulate is lineally descended from the first,&mdash;<i>Equus</i> from <i>Eohippus</i>,
+<i>Hyracotherium</i>, <i>Phenacodus</i>, or <i>Hippops</i>,&mdash;but that this first
+ungulate himself&mdash;whichever it was&mdash;has been, or at least may have been,
+similarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common
+parent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all
+these from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the
+infinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a
+period<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_256" id="page_256">{256}</a></span> of time inconceivably long&mdash;immensely longer than that required
+to change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a
+highly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the
+nails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution
+would be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all
+Mammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while
+this development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian
+life, as raw material for its operations&mdash;and of this at least <i>some</i>
+trace should remain.</p>
+
+<p>But, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon
+earth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could
+possibly have sprung. <i>Phenacodus</i>, is in fact described as,<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> "The
+most primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered." He appears in the Lower
+Tertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,&mdash;the whole
+period covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of
+Tertiary mammals generally,&mdash;are practically devoid of mammalian remains
+altogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no
+more suppose <i>Phenacodus</i> and the huge and various beasts who were his
+Eocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of
+shrew-mice.</p>
+
+<p>It also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental
+mammals first show themselves<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_257" id="page_257">{257}</a></span> all over the world at the beginning of
+the Eocene,&mdash;while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems
+to have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of
+extreme diversities of structure:&mdash;as for instance Unguiculates (or
+clawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing
+animals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the
+Cetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:<a name="FNanchor_297_297" id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than
+any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by
+two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The
+great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (<i>Zeuglodon</i>) which have
+these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are
+undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.
+This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the
+theory of Evolution.... "We may question," says Gaudry,<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> "these
+strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their
+progenitors&mdash;they leave us without reply." ... Their silence is the
+more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have
+been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages
+of their development.</p></div>
+
+<p>The Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from
+the generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in
+quite<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_258" id="page_258">{258}</a></span> another direction. But they appear with their wings fully
+developed, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson]<a name="FNanchor_299_299" id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> that it is "natural to
+suppose" that there must have been species existing previously with
+shorter fingers<a name="FNanchor_300_300" id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts
+to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since
+the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps
+harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the
+present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to
+develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a
+bat?</p></div>
+
+<p>Such instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties
+confined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when
+Anchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might
+claim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but
+Perissodactyles, or "odd-toed," like himself. These were the
+"Proboscideae"&mdash;"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a
+hand," in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other
+families, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of
+their race, for some of their Miocene specimens<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> are about half as
+large again as<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_259" id="page_259">{259}</a></span> the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray
+Lankester has recently declared<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> that we now understand the genetic
+affinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into
+trunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement
+he adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain
+recently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called
+final which are based upon such partial evidence?<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> As M. Gaudry,
+convinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very
+matter:<a name="FNanchor_304_304" id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did
+they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do
+not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as
+a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great
+to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans
+and animals of other orders as yet known to us.</p></div>
+
+<p>Such then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the
+genesis of the Horse, "the most famous instance of geological
+evidence"<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_260" id="page_260">{260}</a></span><a name="FNanchor_305_305" id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to
+demonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be
+supposed to merit any such description. In view of the various
+difficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is
+satisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone
+are such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the <i>Equid�</i>.
+Even were the reality of this established to the full, how would such
+evidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of
+Organic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its
+history?<a name="FNanchor_306_306" id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a></p>
+
+<p>We find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares pal�ontology to be
+the main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact
+contrary.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson]<a name="FNanchor_307_307" id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> is
+essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much
+more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them
+more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants
+revealed by the rocks of the earth.</p></div>
+
+<p>Similarly Professor Williamson,<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> speaking of the efforts made to
+obtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: "Not only living, but
+extinct animals<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_261" id="page_261">{261}</a></span> have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has,
+with his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the
+geological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one."</p>
+
+<p>More important than all,&mdash;Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the
+pal�ontological evidence is far short of what it should be:&mdash;and
+attempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the
+geological record:&mdash;a plea to be more fully considered presently.</p>
+
+<p>We must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological
+record adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a
+slight specimen,&mdash;- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the
+apetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom
+of the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious
+Evolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a
+perfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days,
+in which "we may suppose" all the forms of after vegetation to have
+begun their career as seaweeds.<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p>
+
+<p>But in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he
+goes much further, and prints<a name="FNanchor_310_310" id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> an elaborate genealogy upon which
+Professor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he
+exhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an "Ancestral Series of
+the human pedigree," which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_262" id="page_262">{262}</a></span> will
+naturally suppose to be based upon pal�ontological evidence. This
+wonderful genealogy stands thus:</p>
+
+<p>1. <i>Monera.</i> 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval
+animals. 4. Ciliated planul� (<i>Plan�ada</i>). 5. Primeval Intestinal
+animals (<i>Gastr�ada</i>). 6. Gliding Worms (<i>Turbellaria</i>). 7. Soft-worms
+(<i>Scolecida</i>). 8. Sack worms (<i>Himatega</i>). 9. <i>Acrania.</i> 10.
+<i>Monorrhina.</i> 11. Primeval fish (<i>Selachii</i>). 12. Salamander fish
+(<i>Dipneusta</i>). 13. Gilled Amphibia (<i>Sozobranchia</i>). 14. Tailed Amphibia
+(<i>Sozura</i>). 15. Primeval Amniota (<i>Protamnia</i>). 16. Primary Mammals
+(<i>Promammalia</i>). 17. <i>Marsupialia.</i> 18. Semi-apes (<i>Prosimi�</i>). 19.
+Tailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like
+Apes). 21. <i>Pithecanthropus</i> (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking
+Man.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages]<a name="FNanchor_311_311" id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> is that not
+one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,
+either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon
+theory.<a name="FNanchor_312_312" id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> All species, existing or extinct, are said to have
+been preceded by ancestral forms, which have<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_263" id="page_263">{263}</a></span> disappeared leaving
+no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill
+represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up
+the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is
+sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types
+themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them
+[for example No. 7, The <i>Scolecida</i>, and No. 21,
+<i>Pithecanthropus</i>].</p></div>
+
+<p>This kind of "Science" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will
+be sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree
+telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the
+missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters
+which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that
+have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does
+continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his
+genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another
+would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures
+actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he
+unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in
+phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the
+discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more
+than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely
+hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a
+trace of it, or ever will.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_264" id="page_264">{264}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the
+Riddles of the Universe.</p>
+
+<p>As Vogt himself wrote,<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> "We shall be compelled to patch and alter
+these genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set
+forth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism."</p>
+
+<p>And Du Bois-Reymond,<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a> "Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is
+worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical
+historians."</p>
+
+<p>There remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted
+deficiency of pal�ontological evidence.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>The main cause [he writes]<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> of innumerable intermediate links
+[between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout
+nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through
+which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant
+their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of
+extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of
+intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly
+enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
+stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
+reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,
+is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
+against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
+extreme imperfection of the geological record.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_265" id="page_265">{265}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>How imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has
+no difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been
+defaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to
+our inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is
+continually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not
+appear that it need detain us long.</p>
+
+<p>It is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot
+prove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof
+of that theory which is required. Apart from pal�ontological facts, as
+Professor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one
+way or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently
+complete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be
+scientifically established.</p>
+
+<p>Is it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that
+precisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which
+the Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which
+appears to contradict it?</p>
+
+<p>But, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record
+undoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what
+exists,&mdash;there still remains a vast mass of information which it has
+actually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as
+to the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If,
+as on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were
+in each line of descent no successive<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_266" id="page_266">{266}</a></span> species or genera, made up of
+forms clustered round one point in the course of development more than
+another, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such
+isolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no
+single instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking
+them together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points
+in Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and
+apparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?</p>
+
+<p>It is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite
+inconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly
+unmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is
+sufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the
+Horse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for
+his Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed <i>Equus</i>
+did not exist during the earlier periods when <i>Eohippus</i>,
+<i>Anchitherium</i>, <i>Hipparion</i> and the rest of them were preparing the way
+for his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with
+others more ancient still which are set down as <i>their</i> ancestors. But
+on what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains
+of the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less
+developed. If such a reason be sufficient&mdash;which we will not
+question&mdash;it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of
+intermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_267" id="page_267">{267}</a></span> the supposed
+pedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms
+there never were.</p>
+
+<p>It is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell
+the wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the
+right one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing
+us to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring
+lines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart
+tells us,<a name="FNanchor_317_317" id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> "It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared
+at first to indicate a <i>gradual transition</i>, which instances have been
+shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly
+anything of the kind." Another example of the same sort is furnished by
+the recent discovery of <i>Arsinoetherium</i>, a genus of very large and
+heavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered
+in the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large
+rhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we
+are told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and
+two smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite
+apart <i>from all other mammals</i>.</p>
+
+<p>It thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the
+bar of Pal�ontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend
+is, Not proven.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_268" id="page_268">{268}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>One thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic
+Evolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the
+development of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been
+found by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we
+know.</p>
+
+<p>As the Count de Saporta writes:<a name="FNanchor_318_318" id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Although the problem of "creation,"&mdash;formerly thought so simple,
+and dated almost within human ken and the period of human
+history&mdash;has now been relegated to a period too distant to be
+imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the
+problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been
+shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been
+altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more
+and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to
+investigate remains precisely the same.</p></div>
+
+<p>So too M. Blanchard:<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the
+apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it
+would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.
+If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang
+from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,
+the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of
+the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less
+marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_269" id="page_269">{269}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>And, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell,
+when he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory,
+wrote to him,<a name="FNanchor_320_320" id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a>&mdash;"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much
+required as ever."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_270" id="page_270">{270}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="XVIII" id="XVIII"></a>XVIII</h3>
+
+<h4>TO SUM UP</h4>
+
+<p class="nind">I<small>T</small> is time to return to the point from which we started our whole
+enquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a
+solution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which
+we dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever,
+we saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no
+less than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning,
+and there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,&mdash;a cause
+capable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced.
+The material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,&mdash;organic life
+with all its infinite marvels and varieties&mdash;animal sensation&mdash;human
+intelligence&mdash;canons of beauty, the law of good and evil&mdash;all these must
+have existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence
+alone they could be derived.</p>
+
+<p>The Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we
+set ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science
+has found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_271" id="page_271">{271}</a></span> itself as
+they come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces
+which she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In
+particular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various
+significations, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine,
+from the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be
+said that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.</p>
+
+<p>The result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has
+immensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be
+accounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account
+for them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of
+Nature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than
+they were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of
+motion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational
+intelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order
+to which all Nature testifies,&mdash;all these are for Science utterly
+unsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must
+remain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be
+that any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the
+sublime and beautiful,&mdash;and above all&mdash;of the distinction between right
+and wrong.</p>
+
+<p>Here, then, Science stops,&mdash;confessing that she can be our guide no
+farther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions
+which are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_272" id="page_272">{272}</a></span> Her domain
+is the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within
+that realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our
+intellectual need for causality.</p>
+
+<p>Are we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First
+Cause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the
+Agnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must
+not pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When
+Science fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,&mdash;thus only
+can our position still be scientific.</p>
+
+<p>But is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and
+monstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our
+senses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less
+certain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the
+monument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it
+contains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one
+adequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as
+the proverb says, "Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in
+it." From such conclusions there is no escape;&mdash;and since it is
+impossible to find the cause required within the world of material
+forces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must
+lie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.</p>
+
+<p class="top5">Therefore, also, we know something concerning<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_273" id="page_273">{273}</a></span> that Cause,&mdash;very little,
+perhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,&mdash;but still something
+very substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must
+possess every excellence which we discover in Nature,&mdash;all that she has,
+and more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of
+itself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is
+no power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in
+Nature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be
+supereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise
+of its might,&mdash;or it would be inferior to its own works.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Since there must have been something from eternity, [says
+Bolingbroke]<a name="FNanchor_321_321" id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> because there is something now, the eternal Being
+must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;
+for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce
+entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must
+exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or
+whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to
+conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a
+cause.</p></div>
+
+<p>It is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion
+of the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they
+assume "as absolutely self-evident" the existence<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_274" id="page_274">{274}</a></span> of a Deity who is the
+Creator and Upholder of all things.</p>
+
+<p>It will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which
+formidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the
+whole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did
+not Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own
+image and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be
+more conclusive than that?</p>
+
+<p>But what&mdash;after all&mdash;does "Anthropomorphism" mean in this connexion?
+Simply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is
+superhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are
+by the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression
+except such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can
+convince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some
+extent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no
+description of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination,
+except so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external
+world. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial
+being, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the
+object they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give
+it one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise
+they could not portray it at all. But however such images may be
+refined<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_275" id="page_275">{275}</a></span> and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as
+conventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as
+different from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on
+the score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music
+is a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are
+heads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the
+Theistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into
+words we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and
+to borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the
+highest and noblest element found in the Universe,&mdash;namely our own
+intelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally
+possessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is
+sound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible
+excellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only
+when it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of
+an inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained
+in a pound,&mdash;but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper.
+According to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of
+energy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from
+observation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and
+light; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and
+obvious enough, often as<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_276" id="page_276">{276}</a></span> it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver
+Lodge has lately put the matter:<a name="FNanchor_322_322" id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no
+worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many
+errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy
+attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its
+existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no
+more.</p></div>
+
+<p>Or as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:<a name="FNanchor_323_323" id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself
+thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or
+express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained
+be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than
+the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the
+more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason
+disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of
+the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as
+existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,
+independently of the mind of the investigator.</p></div>
+
+<p>The reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the
+force of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a
+fundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce
+the element of purpose in Nature is to<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_277" id="page_277">{277}</a></span> deny the continuity of Natural
+law, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure,
+is equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that
+particular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may
+be supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of "the commoner
+and coarser forms of teleology," giving as an instance the supposition
+that eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors
+to see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less
+difficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any
+purpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;&mdash;but evidently it
+is taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature
+to be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or
+peacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has
+been said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it
+is through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes
+came to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there
+is of admitting the Creator into Creation. "It is still assumed on both
+sides," he wrote,<a name="FNanchor_324_324" id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> "that there must be something inexplicable or
+miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,"&mdash;and
+although we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of
+Theists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections
+on this head can only signify that<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_278" id="page_278">{278}</a></span> it is with the laws of Nature as
+with a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and
+set it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as
+a legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge
+who administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete
+cases,&mdash;so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted,
+provides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He
+has instituted.</p>
+
+<p>So it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must
+conceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of
+all things, while Lord Kelvin declares<a name="FNanchor_325_325" id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> we are unmistakably shown
+through Nature that she depends upon one "ever-acting Creator and
+Ruler." It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds
+the modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs,
+indeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence
+by identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter
+qualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific
+experience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point
+as against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be "the most
+illogical form of metaphysics," and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, "not so
+much error as sheer nonsense." Theism avoids the error of either
+extreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_279" id="page_279">{279}</a></span>
+between the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His
+creatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and
+that in their every operation He is manifested.</p>
+
+<p>And so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world,
+and the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a
+Self-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a
+basis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need
+of causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as
+necessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only
+indirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.</p>
+
+<p>By no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck,
+the real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore
+represent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with
+them we may conclude.<a name="FNanchor_326_326" id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is
+seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though
+indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he
+observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally
+solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by
+the consideration of His works....</p>
+
+<p>Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of
+things constituting a power subject to law,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_280" id="page_280">{280}</a></span> cannot therefore be
+God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,
+of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus
+the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,
+since these laws originate from Him.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_280a" id="page_280a">{280a}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDIX</h3>
+
+<p class="c"><i>A.</i> <i>Evolution and the lower forms of life</i> (<i><a href="#page_165">p. 165</a></i>).</p>
+
+<p class="nind">A <small>SINGULARLY</small> instructive field for the study of the mutability or
+stability of species should be afforded by the lower forms of life, in
+which organization is reduced to a minimum, they being mere masses of
+protoplasm without even a containing envelope, while their nourishment
+is of the simplest. It would therefore appear that environment should be
+all-potent to modify them and produce specific<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_280b" id="page_280b">{280b}</a></span> modifications, while the
+extreme rapidity with which they propagate their kind, and that
+unisexually, ought to require no vast extent of time to make such
+transmutations apparent.</p>
+
+<p>It is found, however, on the contrary, that nowhere in organic nature
+does the type remain more rigidly persistent. Professor Macbride, for
+example, tells us,<a name="FNanchor_327_327" id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a></p>
+
+<p>"The Myxomycet� may be regarded as the organic group in which the forces
+of heredity,&mdash;whatever these forces may be&mdash;are at their maximum: they
+have responded as little as possible to the influence of their
+environment."</p>
+
+<p>To the same effect speaks Professor Paulesco of Bucharest, of other
+elementary organisms.<a name="FNanchor_328_328" id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a></p>
+
+<p>What is still more remarkable, these same organisms are extremely
+sensitive to altered conditions of environment, which have a direct and
+immediate influence, gravely modifying their morphological and
+physiological characters, changes in respect of light, minute
+alterations of temperature, or the introduction of a new chemical
+substance, even in infinitesimal quantity, frequently causing them to
+assume forms very different from the specific type, and profoundly
+modifying their nutritive processes.</p>
+
+<p>Here, it was at first thought, when Pasteur revealed their history, is
+clear evidence of specific transformation. But he presently convinced
+himself and others that it is not so, for although liable to assume such
+polymorphic forms according to the conditions in which they find
+themselves, there is no alteration of specific nature, and if the
+original circumstances be restored, the original forms reappear&mdash;"une
+�lasticit� functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier � des
+conditions vari�es d'existence sans changer d'�tre." (Pasteur.)</p>
+
+<p>As M. Duclaux adds:<a name="FNanchor_329_329" id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a></p>
+
+<p>"La notion d'esp�ce ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilit� est un
+caract�re comme un autre, bien que plus<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_281" id="page_281">{281}</a></span> difficile � inscrire dans la
+classification, et une esp�ce est aussi bien d�finie par les
+sensibilit�s diverses qu'elle manifeste que par la petite liste des mots
+et de propri�t�s dans laquelle on croyait pouvoir autrefois enfermer
+toute son histoire.... La lien de l'esp�ce c'est la loi qui pr�side �
+ces changements, et la vari�t� des formes et des fonctions n'est pas du
+tout en contradiction avec l'unit� de l'esp�ce."</p>
+
+<p class="c"><i>B.</i> <i>Note on Chap. XV. <a href="#page_203">p. 203</a>.</i></p>
+
+<p>Since the foregoing pages have been in type there has come to hand the
+New York <i>Literary Digest</i> of January 23, 1904, containing the following
+article (p. 119).</p>
+
+<p class="c">"<span class="smcap">Are the Days of Darwinism Numbered?</span>"</p>
+
+<p>The recent death of Herbert Spencer lends special timeliness to the
+above topic, which is being actively debated just now in German
+theological circles. The immediate cause of the revival of interest in
+the present status of the Darwinian theory is found in a lengthy article
+by the veteran philosopher, Edward von Hartmann, which appears in
+Oswald's <i>Annalen der Naturphilosophie</i> (vol. ii. 1903), under the title
+'Der Niedergang der Darwinismus' ('The Passing of Darwinism'). That the
+famous 'philosopher of the unconscious' is not prejudiced in favour of
+biblical views has been more than clear since the publication of his
+<i>Selbstzersetzung der Christentums</i> ('Disintegration of Christianity')
+in 1874. Hartmann in his new article has this to say&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>'In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of
+savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies,
+the new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In
+the eighties, Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an
+almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for
+the first time, a few timid<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_282" id="page_282">{282}</a></span> expressions of doubt and opposition were
+heard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming
+at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the
+twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are
+numbered. Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, Gustav
+Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann, Reinke, and many
+others.'</p>
+
+<p>These facts, according to Hartmann's view, while they do not indicate
+that the Darwinian theory is doomed, undermine its most radical
+features:</p>
+
+<p>'The theory of descent is safe, but Darwinism has been weighed and found
+wanting. Selection can in general not achieve any positive results, but
+only negative effects; the origin of species by minimal changes is
+possible, but has not been demonstrated. The pretensions of Darwinism as
+a pure mechanical explanation of results that show purpose are totally
+groundless.'</p>
+
+<p>Other scholars think that Hartmann does not do full justice to the
+reaction that has set in, particularly in Germany, against Darwinism.
+This sentiment is voiced by Professor Zoeckler, of the University of
+Greifswald, in the <i>Beweis des Glaubens</i> (No. xi.), a journal which
+recently published a collection of anti-Darwinian views from German
+naturalists. He calls the article of Hartmann 'the tombstone-inscription
+[<i>Grabschrift</i>] for Darwinism,' and goes on to say:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>'The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically
+must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartmann's exposition nor
+the authorities he cites have the force of moral conviction for the
+claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is
+not a scientifically demonstrated proposition, although descent in
+an ideal sense can be made to harmonize with the biblical account
+of creation.'</p></div>
+
+<p>Views of a similar kind are voiced in many quarters. The Hamburg savant,
+Edward Hoppe, has written a<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_283" id="page_283">{283}</a></span> brochure, <i>Ist mit der Descendenz-Theorie
+eine religi�se Vorstellung vereinbar?</i> [Is the Theory of Evolution
+reconcilable with the Religious Idea?] in which he takes issue, in the
+name of religion, with the purely naturalistic type of Darwinian
+thought. The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwinian views is
+Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, who has not only discarded the
+mechanical conception of the origin of being, but the whole Darwinian
+theory. He recently delivered a course of lectures, entitled 'Die
+Darwin'sche Theorie,' which have appeared in book form in Leipsic. He
+comes to this conclusion: 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a
+single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result
+of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.'</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>From another article in the same journal (p. 116), entitled 'A Study of
+Creation,' the following paragraphs may be cited:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"The French have never been enthusiastic Darwinians. It is,
+perhaps, not surprising, therefore, to find a French geologist, M.
+Stanislas Meunier, arguing in the <i>Revue Scientifique</i> (December
+19) against all schools of transformism and stoutly maintaining
+what is practically a doctrine of special creation. He admits that
+living beings form a connected series; but the connexion, he
+believes, is not one of physical descent, but inheres in something
+outside of and pre-existent to the earth. He does not name it, but
+he would probably not object to the inference that it is the mind
+of a creator.</p>
+
+<p>"M. Meunier gives at some length his reasons for rejecting
+Darwin's, Lamarck's, and all other theories of transformism. All we
+can be sure of, he thinks, is that, as in the case of the various
+kinds of pottery, we have to do with an orderly development,
+although he thinks it is not a development by descent. He closes,
+thus:<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_284" id="page_284">{284}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>"'Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis on the mechanism
+of the production of living things; but it is, perhaps, a step in
+advance only to come to the conclusion that the cause of life and
+its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth; that it
+is anterior to our world, just as are doubtless the laws of physics
+and chemistry, which govern the relations of matter and force
+throughout space.</p>
+
+<p>"'The philosophy of science can lose nothing by the admission of
+points of view that, far from narrowing our subjects of study,
+enlarge them beyond all limits; and this is, perhaps, the occasion
+to show once more to persons who are turning toward metaphysics in
+their thirst for mystery, that they will find in pure science that
+wherewith they may satisfy their legitimate aspirations.'"</p></div>
+
+<p class="c"><i>C.</i> <i>Succession of Plant forms <a href="#page_220">p. 220</a>.</i></p>
+
+<p>Recent investigations have led to the remarkable discovery that many
+fern-like plants of the Carboniferous rocks, hitherto classed as
+Cryptogams, were in reality seed-bearers, and thus intermediate between
+Cryptogams and Cycads, the most primitive of existing seed-plants. They
+have accordingly been placed in a special group "Cycadofilices," or
+"Fern-Cycads," and regarded as transitional types, the view that they
+are the remains of a natural bridge connecting the Ferns with the
+Gymnosperms having received wide support,<a name="FNanchor_330_330" id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> and at first sight this
+conclusion would appear natural and obvious. But here, as in other
+cases, the difficulty is that the seeds which have been found are all
+fully developed; there are none in the intermediate stages between true
+spores and true seeds; we have the finished article, but no trace of
+seeds in the making; which upon any theory of evolution must have been
+exceedingly numerous. Hence Dr. Scott tells us:<a name="FNanchor_331_331" id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a></p>
+
+<p>"The important discoveries of the seeds of the Pteridosperms<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_285" id="page_285">{285}</a></span> scarcely
+touch the question of descent, for these organs are of too advanced a
+type to throw light on the probable derivation of the group."</p>
+
+<p>In this instance, therefore, as in others, it remains true that in no
+case is any trace found of rudimentary character in the earliest fossil
+specimens of any class.</p>
+
+<p>It is undoubtedly a further puzzle that some of the Carboniferous
+cryptogams which did not bear real seeds, yet simulated them, a habit
+not easily explained on evolutionary principles.</p>
+
+<p class="c"><i>D.</i> <i>The Course of Evolution.</i></p>
+
+<p>The evidence of Professor Vines quoted in the text (pp. 202, 237)
+receives a remarkable confirmation from that of Dr. Smith Woodward,
+Keeper of Geology in the National Museum of Natural History. Speaking
+before the International Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis,
+U.S.A., September 22nd, 1904, he thus touched upon the same question,
+which he illustrated especially from the history of fossil fishes, which
+he has made his special study.<a name="FNanchor_332_332" id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"It must be confessed that repeated discoveries have now left faint
+hope that exact and gradual links will ever be forthcoming between
+most of the families and genera. The 'imperfection of the record,'
+of course, may still render some of the negative evidence
+untrustworthy; but even approximate links would be much commoner in
+collections than they actually are if the doctrine of gradual
+evolution were correct. Pal�ontology, indeed, is clearly in favour
+of the theory of discontinuous mutation, or advance by sudden
+changes, which has lately received so much support from the
+botanical experiments of H. de Vries.</p>
+
+<p>"Further results obtained from the study of fossils have a bearing
+even on the deepest problems of Biology, namely, those connected
+with the nature of life itself. For instance, it is allowable to
+infer, from the statements already made, that the main factor in
+the evolution of organisms is some inherent impulse&mdash;the 'bathmic
+force' of Cope&mdash;which acts with unerring certainty whatever be the
+conditions of the moment."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_286" id="page_286">{286}</a></span></p></div>
+
+<p class="c"><i>E.</i> <i>Pedigree of the Horse.</i></p>
+
+<p>Some recent evidence on this subject certainly does not clear away the
+difficulties set forth in the text.</p>
+
+<p>From <i>Nature</i>, Sept. 8, 1904, p. 474.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"Professor Osborn (in a lecture before the British Association)
+mentioned that more than a hundred more or less complete skeletons
+of horses and horse-like animals had been found in North America.
+He thought he had established the fact that horses were
+polyphyletic, there being four or five contemporary series in the
+Miocene, but that the direct origin of the genus <i>Equus</i> in North
+America was not established with certainty."</p></div>
+
+<p>Professor Sedgwick, <i>Student's Text Book of Zoology</i>, p. 599.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"Much has been written on the ancestry of the horse. It has been
+maintained by many authors that a continuous series of forms
+connecting it with the four-toed, brachyodont Hyracothorid� of the
+Eocene has been discovered, and that here if anywhere a
+demonstrative historical proof has been obtained of the doctrine of
+organic evolution. Without desiring in the smallest degree to
+impugn that doctrine, it may be permitted us here to examine rather
+closely the view that the series of forms which recent
+pal�ontological research has undoubtedly brought to light
+constitute that historical proof which has been claimed for them."</p></div>
+
+<p>[After an examination of the structural characters of these intermediate
+forms, viz., <i>Pliohippus</i>, <i>Protohippus</i>, <i>Desmathippus</i>, <i>Miohippus</i>,
+<i>Mesohippus</i>, <i>Orohippus</i>, and <i>Hyracotherium</i>, the author proceeds]:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"So far as the characters mentioned are concerned, we have here a
+very remarkable series of forms which at first sight seem to
+constitute a linear series with no cross-connections. Whether,
+however, they really do this is a difficult point to decide. There
+are flaws in the chain of evidence, which require careful and
+detailed consideration. For instance, the genus <i>Equus</i> appears in
+the Upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene
+age. It<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_287" id="page_287">{287}</a></span> has, however, been maintained that these beds are in
+reality Lower Pliocene, or even Upper Pliocene. It is clear that
+the decision of this question is of the utmost importance. If
+<i>Equus</i> really existed in the Upper Miocene, it was antecedent to
+some of its supposed ancestors. Again in the series of equine
+forms, <i>Mesohippus</i>, <i>Miohippus</i>, <i>Desmathippus</i>, <i>Protohippus</i>,
+which are generally regarded as coming into the direct line of
+equine descent, Scott<a name="FNanchor_333_333" id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a> points out that each genus is, in some
+respect or other, less modified than its predecessor. In other
+words, it would appear that in this succession of North American
+forms the earlier genera show, in some points, closer resemblance
+to the modern <i>Equus</i> than to their immediate successors. It is
+possible that these difficulties and others of the same kind will
+be overcome with the growth of knowledge, but it is necessary to
+take note of them, for in the search after truth nothing is gained
+by ignoring such apparent discrepancies between theory and fact."</p></div>
+
+<p>Besides the structure of limbs and teeth, another argument for the
+descent of the horse has been drawn from certain phenomena of
+colouration. Stripings are found not unfrequently to occur in the legs
+and withers, which Darwin took for a reversion to the character of a
+very remote ancestor, the common parent, in fact, of horses and asses,
+which he supposed to have been striped all over like a zebra. Like other
+such common ancestors, this hypothetical animal had never been seen, but
+was thought to be most nearly represented by the Kathiwar horse, with
+stripes on a dun ground, a specimen of which is exhibited as
+illustrating the hypothesis in the National Museum of Zoology.</p>
+
+<p>Recently, however, Professor Ridgeway, who has devoted special attention
+to the problem, has satisfied himself that there is no sufficient
+foundation for these suppositions. He thus sums up the evidence which he
+has been able to collect:<a name="FNanchor_334_334" id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_288" id="page_288">{288}</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"Darwin's view that the original ancestor of the Equid� was a
+dun-coloured animal, striped all over, was based, not merely on the
+occurrence of stripes in horses, but on his belief that such
+stripes were common in dun horses, and that there was a tendency in
+horses to revert to dun colour. But it must be confessed that the
+facts do not warrant his conclusion.... It is clear that stripes
+are at least as often a concomitant of dark as of dun colour.
+Moreover, if Darwin's hypothesis of a dun-coloured ancestor with
+stripes is sound, dark colours such as bay and brown must be of
+more recent origin, and accordingly there ought to be a great
+readiness on the part of a progeny of a light-coloured animal when
+mated with a dark to revert to the light. But Professor Ewart's
+zebra stallion has never been able to stamp his own peculiar
+pattern or his own colours on his hybrid offspring. The ground
+colour has been determined by the dams of the hybrids."</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_289" id="page_289">{289}</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX</h3>
+
+<p class="nind">
+<i>Abiogenesis</i>, <a href="#page_049">49-51</a><br />
+
+<i>�tiology</i>, <a href="#page_197">197</a><br />
+
+Agnosticism, Huxley's first principle of, <a href="#page_004">4</a><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Its fundamental principle unreasonable, <a href="#page_272">272</a></span><br />
+
+American Museum and the pedigree of the Horse, <a href="#page_248">248</a><br />
+
+Amphibians, embryology, <a href="#page_195">195</a><br />
+
+"Anthropomorphism," 2<a href="#page_074">74</a>, <a href="#page_275">275</a><br />
+
+<i>Arch�opteryx</i>, <a href="#page_171">171</a><br />
+
+<i>Archebiosis</i>, <a href="#page_053">53</a><br />
+
+Argus pheasant, ornamentation, <a href="#page_175">175</a><br />
+
+<i>Arsinoetherium</i>, <a href="#page_267">267</a><br />
+
+Atlantic cable, an illustration from, of chance and purpose, <a href="#page_115">115</a><br />
+
+Atoms, <a href="#page_037">37</a>, <a href="#page_041">41</a>, <a href="#page_088">88</a>, <a href="#page_089">89</a>, <a href="#page_090">90</a>, <a href="#page_136">136</a><br />
+
+Augustine, St.&mdash;on creation <i>causaliter et seminaliter</i>, <a href="#page_141">141</a>, <a href="#page_207">207</a><br />
+
+<i>Axolotl</i>, <a href="#page_195">195</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Baden-Powell, Prof.&mdash;on the nature of the First Cause, <a href="#page_276">276</a><br />
+
+Bastian, Dr. H. C.&mdash;on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_021">21</a>, <a href="#page_050">50</a>, <a href="#page_053">53</a><br />
+
+<i>Bathybius Haeckelii</i>, <a href="#page_021">21</a><br />
+
+Batrachians, appearance of, <a href="#page_225">225</a><br />
+
+Bats, an evolutionary puzzle, <a href="#page_229">229</a>, <a href="#page_257">257</a><br />
+
+Bee, cell-making instinct, <a href="#page_156">156</a>, <a href="#page_179">179</a><br />
+
+Bickerton, Prof.,&mdash;on dissipation of energy, 2<a href="#page_007">7</a> n.<br />
+
+<i>Biogenesis</i>, <a href="#page_049">49</a>, <a href="#page_050">50</a><br />
+
+Blanchard, M.&mdash;on variation, <a href="#page_164">164</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Darwinian argumentation, <a href="#page_181">181</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on fecundity as a factor in survival, <a href="#page_188">188</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the problem of creation, <a href="#page_268">268</a></span><br />
+
+Bolingbroke, Viscount,&mdash;on the nature of the first cause, <a href="#page_273">273</a><br />
+
+Bridgman, Laura, <a href="#page_077">77</a><br />
+
+Bunsen, Chevalier,&mdash;on animal sounds and language, <a href="#page_074">74</a><br />
+
+Butler, Bishop,&mdash;on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, <a href="#page_100">100</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Carruthers, Mr. W.&mdash;on specific stability of <i>Salix polaris</i>, <a href="#page_164">164</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on classification of plants, <a href="#page_214">214</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the geological record, <a href="#page_216">216</a>, <a href="#page_265">265</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on past history of plant-life, <a href="#page_216">216</a> <i>seq.</i>; on<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_290" id="page_290">{290}</a></span></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">an assertion of Haeckel's, <a href="#page_221">221</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the evidence supplied by fossil plants, 2<a href="#page_023">23</a></span><br />
+
+Case,  Prof.&mdash;on the meaning of "fortuitous," <a href="#page_125">125</a><br />
+
+Causation, principle of, <a href="#page_002">2</a>, <a href="#page_087">87</a>, <a href="#page_094">94</a>, <a href="#page_107">107</a><br />
+
+Cause, the First. See <i><a href="#First_Cause">First Cause</a></i><br />
+
+Chance, <a href="#page_110">110</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_151">151</a>, <a href="#page_174">174</a><br />
+
+Cicero&mdash;on the evidence for a Deity, <a href="#page_103">103</a><br />
+
+Clerk-Maxwell, Prof.&mdash;on force and energy, <a href="#page_023">23</a> n;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Molecules, <a href="#page_090">90</a>, <a href="#page_104">104</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evidence of design, <i>ibid.</i></span><br />
+
+Clifford, Prof. W. K.&mdash;on design in Nature, <a href="#page_101">101</a><br />
+
+Clodd, Mr. E.&mdash;on atoms, <a href="#page_041">41</a><br />
+
+Comte, Auguste&mdash;on materialism, <a href="#page_278">278</a><br />
+
+Consciousness, origin of, <a href="#page_067">67</a><br />
+
+<i>Cosmos</i> and its Cause, <a href="#page_086">86</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Croll, Mr.&mdash;on force and its determination, 9<a href="#page_004">4-96</a><br />
+
+Crookes, Sir W.&mdash;on renovation of energy, <a href="#page_026">26</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on radium and radio-activity, <a href="#page_042">42</a>, <a href="#page_043">43</a></span><br />
+
+Cryptogamous plants, fossil history, <a href="#page_219">219</a><br />
+
+Crystallization, <a href="#page_063">63</a>, <a href="#page_064">64</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Darwin, Mr.&mdash;on the "law of continuity," <a href="#page_057">57</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_058">58</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the mental gulf between man and brute, <a href="#page_071">71</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the origin of language, <a href="#page_079">79</a>, <a href="#page_178">178</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on "creation," <a href="#page_091">91</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the structure of the eye, <a href="#page_091">91</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on chance as a factor of the world, <a href="#page_116">116</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on pain and suffering as an objection to design, <a href="#page_119">119</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">disclaims achievements attributed to him, <a href="#page_150">150</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his system, <a href="#page_153">153</a> <i>seq.</i> (see <i>Darwinism</i>);</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his mode of arguing, <a href="#page_178">178</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">dogmatism, <a href="#page_179">179</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">pleads lack of knowledge as an argument, <a href="#page_182">182</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on single origin of every species, <a href="#page_210">210</a>, <a href="#page_254">254</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on genealogy of the Horse, <a href="#page_259">259</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the imperfection of the geological record, <a href="#page_264">264</a></span><br />
+
+<a name="Darwinism" id="Darwinism"></a>Darwinism, <a href="#page_149">149</a> <i>seq.</i>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">false representations of, <a href="#page_149">149-151</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sketch of system, <a href="#page_151">151-157</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">facts favouring, <a href="#page_158">158-160</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">difficulties of, <a href="#page_160">160</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">explains no origins, <a href="#page_161">161</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">ignores the prime factor, <i>ibid.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">improbabilities, <a href="#page_166">166</a>, <a href="#page_173">173</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">does not explain initial developments, <a href="#page_170">170</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nor artistic ornamentation, <a href="#page_175">175</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">specious arguments too easily forthcoming, <a href="#page_177">177</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">does not account for organic progression, <a href="#page_187">187</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">scientific opinions concerning, <a href="#page_198">198</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_281">281</a></span><br />
+
+Dawson, Sir J. W.&mdash;on the first origin of life, <a href="#page_208">208</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the history of animal life, <a href="#page_223">223</a>; on genealogy of the <i>Equid�</i>, <a href="#page_247">247</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of the <i>Cetacea</i>, <a href="#page_257">257</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of bats,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_291" id="page_291">{291}</a></span></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#page_258">258</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on lack of pal�ontological evidence for evolution, <a href="#page_260">260</a></span><br />
+
+Design, evidence of, in Nature, <a href="#page_090">90</a>, <a href="#page_097">97</a> <i>seq.</i>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Kant on the necessity of, <a href="#page_150">150</a></span><br />
+
+Determination of force, its necessity, <a href="#page_094">94-96</a>, <a href="#page_114">114</a><br />
+
+Determinism of the will, <a href="#page_081">81</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Development of organic types, <a href="#page_146">146</a><br />
+
+Dicotyledons, appearance of, <a href="#page_220">220</a><br />
+
+Diderot&mdash;on evidence of intelligence in Nature, <a href="#page_125">125</a><br />
+
+<i>Dinotherium</i>, classification of, <a href="#page_259">259</a> n<br />
+
+Dogs, their vocal expression of emotions, <a href="#page_073">73</a><br />
+
+Du Bois-Reymond, Herr,&mdash;on the "Seven Enigmas," <a href="#page_031">31-33</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the progress of human development, <a href="#page_068">68</a>, <a href="#page_069">69</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Haeckel's genealogies, <a href="#page_264">264</a></span><br />
+
+<i>Dysteleology</i>, <a href="#page_190">190</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Ear, structure of, <a href="#page_093">93</a><br />
+
+<i>Electrons</i>, <a href="#page_042">42</a><br />
+
+Elephant and Tortoise of Hindu astronomy, <a href="#page_107">107</a><br />
+
+Embryology and Evolution, <a href="#page_158">158-160</a>, <a href="#page_192">192</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+"Energy," <a href="#page_023">23</a>; conservation of, <i>ibid.</i>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">dissipation of, <a href="#page_024">24</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">renovation of, <a href="#page_026">26-28</a></span><br />
+
+"Enigmas, the Seven," <a href="#page_032">32</a><br />
+
+<i>Entropy</i>, <a href="#page_025">25</a><br />
+
+<i>Equid�</i>. See <i><a href="#Horse">Horse</a></i><br />
+
+Ether, a constituent of the universe, <a href="#page_036">36</a><br />
+
+Evil, Origin of, the darkest of mysteries, <a href="#page_120">120</a><br />
+
+"Evolution," different meanings of term, <a href="#page_008">8</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">as an operative law, <a href="#page_010">10-14</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">eternal, <a href="#page_011">11</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">as a philosophy, <a href="#page_022">22</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">formula of, <a href="#page_145">145</a></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">As a process, <a href="#page_045">45</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a name="Organic" id="Organic"></a>Organic, <a href="#page_142">142</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">essential characters of theory, <a href="#page_147">147</a>, <a href="#page_206">206</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">nature of evidence required, <a href="#page_208">208</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">history of in vegetable and animal kingdoms, <a href="#page_216">216</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+
+Eye, origin of, <a href="#page_091">91</a>, <a href="#page_154">154</a><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Helmholtz, on defects of, <a href="#page_091">91</a> n.;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">structure of, <a href="#page_155">155</a> n.;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;">evolution of, <a href="#page_168">168</a></span><br />
+<br />
+
+Fabre, M.&mdash;on Darwin's facts, <a href="#page_200">200</a> n.;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on our ignorance of Nature, <a href="#page_203">203</a></span><br />
+
+Faraday, Prof.&mdash;on gravitation, <a href="#page_125">125</a><br />
+
+Final causality (Teleology), <a href="#page_098">98</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+<a name="First_Cause" id="First_Cause"></a>First Cause, the object of inference, <a href="#page_096">96</a>, <a href="#page_097">97</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nature of as shown by reason, <a href="#page_270">270</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+
+Fish, appearance of, <a href="#page_225">225</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">problems presented by, <a href="#page_233">233</a></span><br />
+
+Flight, problem of, <a href="#page_093">93</a><br />
+
+Flower, Sir W.&mdash;on the extinct American horse, <a href="#page_254">254</a><br />
+
+Force, nature of, <a href="#page_023">23</a><br />
+
+<a name="Free-will" id="Free-will"></a>Free-will, Prof. Haeckel on, <a href="#page_033">33</a>, <a href="#page_081">81</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Dr. Johnson on, <a href="#page_084">84</a></span><br />
+
+Fuegians, mental likeness to ourselves, <a href="#page_072">72</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Garnett, Prof.&mdash;on force, 23<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_292" id="page_292">{292}</a></span><br />
+
+Gaudry, M.&mdash;on ancestry of whales, <a href="#page_257">257</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">of bats, <a href="#page_258">258</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">of proboscidians, <a href="#page_259">259</a></span><br />
+
+Genera and species, <a href="#page_244">244</a> n.<br />
+
+<i>Generatio aequivoca</i>, <a href="#page_065">65</a><br />
+
+Generation, mysteries of, <a href="#page_123">123</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Geological formations, succession of, <a href="#page_213">213</a><br />
+
+Geological record, <a href="#page_216">216</a>, <a href="#page_264">264</a>, <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Giraffe, evolution of, <a href="#page_154">154</a><br />
+
+Glass, fortuitously discovered, <a href="#page_115">115</a><br />
+
+Goethe&mdash;on "iron law," <a href="#page_014">14</a><br />
+
+Gore, Dr. G.&mdash;on machinery as excluding idea of design, <a href="#page_118">118</a><br />
+
+"Grand Question," the, <a href="#page_096">96</a><br />
+
+Grimthorpe, Lord (Sir E. Beckett)&mdash;on matter, <a href="#page_037">37</a>; on the problem of flight, <a href="#page_093">93</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evidences of purpose, <a href="#page_094">94</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on generation, <a href="#page_124">124</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the structure of the eye, <a href="#page_155">155</a> n.</span><br />
+
+Gymnosperms, appearance of, <a href="#page_219">219</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Haeckel, Prof. E.&mdash;on "rational view of the world," <a href="#page_010">10-14</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the "magic word evolution," <a href="#page_016">16</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on scientific method, <a href="#page_018">18</a>, <a href="#page_020">20</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the law of substance, <a href="#page_013">13</a>, <a href="#page_023">23</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the conservation of energy, <a href="#page_023">23</a>, <a href="#page_024">24</a>, <a href="#page_026">26</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the "Seven Enigmas," <a href="#page_033">33</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the nature and properties of matter, <a href="#page_035">35</a>, <a href="#page_039">39</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the artificial manufacture of protoplasm, <a href="#page_059">59</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on free-will and determinism, <a href="#page_081">81</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on design in Nature, <a href="#page_090">90</a>, <a href="#page_150">150</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on chance, <a href="#page_117">117</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Monism, <a href="#page_128">128</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on annihilation as a desirable end, <a href="#page_130">130</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the ultimate reality, <a href="#page_135">135</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">unfounded claims on behalf of Darwin, <a href="#page_150">150</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">bases arguments on lack of knowledge, <a href="#page_183">183</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on rudimentary organs and "Dysteleology," <a href="#page_190">190</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on single origin of every species, <a href="#page_210">210</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the appearance of the <i>Apetal�</i>, <a href="#page_221">221</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">invents geological "ante-periods," <a href="#page_236">236</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and intermediate forms, <a href="#page_261">261</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his pedigree of man, <a href="#page_261">261</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his method of solving the riddles of Nature, <a href="#page_264">264</a></span><br />
+
+Heredity, <a href="#page_083">83</a>, <a href="#page_099">99</a><br />
+
+Herschel, Sir J.&mdash;on molecules as manufactured articles, <a href="#page_089">89</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evidence of mind in Nature, <a href="#page_100">100</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on gravitation, <a href="#page_125">125</a></span><br />
+
+<i>Hesperornis</i>, <a href="#page_171">171</a><br />
+
+Heurtin, Marie, <a href="#page_077">77</a><br />
+
+<i>Hippops</i>, <a href="#page_246">246</a>, <a href="#page_252">252</a><br />
+
+Hird, Mr. D.&mdash;on the omnipotence of Evolution, <a href="#page_014">14</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on transformations of force, <a href="#page_129">129</a></span><br />
+
+Holland, Sir H.&mdash;on structure of ear, <a href="#page_093">93</a><br />
+
+Homer, a "half-savage Greek," <a href="#page_069">69</a> n.<br />
+
+<i>Homo alalus</i>, and <i>sapiens</i>, <a href="#page_081">81</a><br />
+
+<a name="Horse" id="Horse"></a>Horse, structure of, <a href="#page_094">94</a>, <a href="#page_240">240</a><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Genealogy of, <a href="#page_236">236</a>, <a href="#page_241">241</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+
+Hudson, Dr.&mdash;on neglect of<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_293" id="page_293">{293}</a></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">study of present life in favour of evolutionary speculations, <a href="#page_185">185</a></span><br />
+
+Humboldt, W. von&mdash;on human speech, <a href="#page_076">76</a><br />
+
+Hutton, F. W.&mdash;on finite duration of the world, <a href="#page_002">2</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and of the universe, <a href="#page_028">28</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on dissipation of energy, <a href="#page_027">27</a> n.</span><br />
+
+Huxley, Prof.&mdash;on finite duration of the world, <a href="#page_001">1</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the nature of science, <a href="#page_005">5</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on "Laws of Nature," <a href="#page_016">16-18</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Evolution as a philosophy, <a href="#page_021">21</a>, <a href="#page_022">22</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on matter, <a href="#page_038">38</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the beginning of life, <a href="#page_046">46</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on faith and verification, <a href="#page_047">47</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the fundamental principle of Evolution, <a href="#page_048">48</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_050">50-54</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on protoplasm, <a href="#page_059">59</a>, <a href="#page_060">60</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on structure of the Horse, <a href="#page_093">93</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on theism and creation, <a href="#page_100">100</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on teleology, <a href="#page_102">102</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on theism and chance, <a href="#page_103">103</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the non-existence of chance, <a href="#page_111">111</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on seeming waste in nature, <a href="#page_121">121</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on mind and matter, <a href="#page_133">133</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Saurian birds, <a href="#page_172">172</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on <i>Dysteleology</i>, <a href="#page_191">191</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on embryology and �tiology, <a href="#page_197">197</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the Darwinian theory, <a href="#page_200">200</a>, <a href="#page_201">201</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on facts as the only sound basis of theory, <a href="#page_204">204</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the fundamental doctrine of organic evolution, <a href="#page_206">206</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evolutionary evidence, <a href="#page_235">235</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Haeckel's "Ante-periods," <a href="#page_236">236</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">claims pal�ontological evidence as demonstrative of Evolution, <a href="#page_239">239</a>, <a href="#page_261">261</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his pedigree of the Horse, <a href="#page_236">236</a>, <a href="#page_242">242</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">discussed, <a href="#page_244">244</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+
+<i>Hydra</i>, structure of, <a href="#page_146">146</a><br />
+<br />
+
+<i>Icthyornis</i>, <a href="#page_171">171</a><br />
+
+<i>Inertia</i>, a property of matter, <a href="#page_039">39</a><br />
+
+Inference, <a href="#page_005">5</a> n.; <a href="#page_096">96</a>, <a href="#page_272">272</a><br />
+
+Insects, insular, as an argument for Natural Selection, <a href="#page_154">154</a>, <a href="#page_167">167</a><br />
+
+Invertebrate life, history of, <a href="#page_225">225</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Johnson, Dr.&mdash;on free-will, <a href="#page_084">84</a><br />
+
+Julius C�sar, his polydactyle charger, <a href="#page_241">241</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Kant&mdash;on necessity of design, <a href="#page_150">150</a><br />
+
+Keller, Miss <a href="#page_077">77</a><br />
+
+Kelvin, Lord (Sir W. Thomson),&mdash;on the dissipation of energy, <a href="#page_025">25</a>, <a href="#page_026">26</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his Law of Parsimony, <a href="#page_098">98</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on science and theism, <a href="#page_104">104</a>, <a href="#page_278">278</a></span><br />
+<br />
+
+Laing, Mr. S.&mdash;on matter and motion, <a href="#page_035">35</a><br />
+
+Lamarck&mdash;on Nature's witness to God, <a href="#page_279">279</a><br />
+
+Language, our "Rubicon," <a href="#page_073">73</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">distinctively human, <a href="#page_073">73-78</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">essential character, <a href="#page_074">74</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">theories as to origin, <a href="#page_079">79</a></span><br />
+
+Lankester, Prof. Ray&mdash;on evolution of <i>Proboscideae</i>, <a href="#page_259">259</a><br />
+
+Laws of Nature&mdash;what? <a href="#page_016">16</a>,<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_294" id="page_294">{294}</a></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#page_017">17</a>, <a href="#page_086">86</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">expressions of creative intelligence, <a href="#page_123">123</a>, <a href="#page_277">277</a></span><br />
+
+Lewes, Mr.&mdash;on Laws of Nature, <a href="#page_086">86</a><br />
+
+Liddon, Canon&mdash;on Laws of Nature, <a href="#page_016">16</a><br />
+
+Life had a beginning, <a href="#page_046">46</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a name="origin_of" id="origin_of"></a>origin of, <a href="#page_046">46-66</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">laws of, <a href="#page_090">90</a></span><br />
+
+Link forms wanting in Nature, <a href="#page_208">208</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_228">228</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Lodge, Sir O.&mdash;on non-purposive Evolution, <a href="#page_202">202</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on anthropomorphism and the First Cause, <a href="#page_276">276</a></span><br />
+
+Lydekker, Mr. R.&mdash;on pedigree of the Horse, <a href="#page_248">248</a><br />
+
+Lyell, Sir C.&mdash;on the need of creation, <a href="#page_269">269</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Mallock, Mr. W.&mdash;on human conduct, <a href="#page_139">139</a><br />
+
+Mammals, appearance of, <a href="#page_226">226</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">problems suggested by, <a href="#page_255">255</a></span><br />
+
+Man, faculties, <a href="#page_071">71</a> <i>seq.</i>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">appearance of, <a href="#page_227">227</a></span><br />
+
+Marsh, Prof.&mdash;on Evolution, <a href="#page_047">47</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on <i>Hippops</i>, <a href="#page_252">252</a></span><br />
+
+Marshall, Prof. Milnes&mdash;on the teachings of Evolution, <a href="#page_015">15</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on embryology, <a href="#page_159">159</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Haeckel's treatment of the same, <a href="#page_195">195</a></span><br />
+
+Marsupials, first appearance, <a href="#page_226">226</a><br />
+
+<i>Materia Prima</i>, <a href="#page_042">42</a> n<br />
+
+Matter, <a href="#page_035">35</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">indestructibility, <a href="#page_013">13</a>, <a href="#page_023">23</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">properties, <a href="#page_036">36</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">constitution, <a href="#page_037">37</a>, <a href="#page_041">41</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_135">135</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and motion, <a href="#page_039">39</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">dissolution of, <a href="#page_043">43</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and mind, <a href="#page_131">131</a> <i>seq.</i></span><br />
+
+Max M�ller, Prof.&mdash;on language, <a href="#page_073">73</a>, <a href="#page_075">75</a><br />
+
+Mendel�eff's Periodic Law, <a href="#page_088">88</a><br />
+
+Mind and matter, connexion of, <a href="#page_131">131</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Mivart, Mr. St. G.&mdash;on the gulf between man and brute, <a href="#page_072">72</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the essence of language, <a href="#page_074">74</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on theories as to its origin, <a href="#page_079">79</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the ease with which Darwinian arguments can be found, <a href="#page_177">177</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on embryology of Salamander, <a href="#page_193">193</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on incompatibility of geological evidence with theory of Evolution by minute and gradual modification, <a href="#page_228">228</a>, <a href="#page_230">230</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evolution of the Horse, <a href="#page_255">255</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the failure of apparent links, <a href="#page_267">267</a></span><br />
+
+Mole, evolution of, <a href="#page_181">181</a><br />
+
+Molecules, <a href="#page_088">88</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"manufactured articles," <a href="#page_089">89</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Clerk-Maxwell on, <a href="#page_090">90</a>, <a href="#page_104">104</a></span><br />
+
+Monism, <a href="#page_126">126</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_278">278</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and morality, <a href="#page_137">137</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and Truth, <a href="#page_138">138</a></span><br />
+
+Monocotyledons, appearance of, <a href="#page_219">219</a><br />
+
+Motion, as a property of matter, <a href="#page_039">39</a><br />
+
+<i>Myriadism</i>, a better term for <i>Monism</i>, <a href="#page_136">136</a><br />
+<br />
+
+"Natural Selection," what it is, <a href="#page_152">152</a> <i>seq.</i>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its powers discussed, <a href="#page_165">165</a> <i>seq.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">can produce nothing, <a href="#page_168">168</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a misnomer, <a href="#page_174">174</a>. See <i><a href="#Darwinism">Darwinism</a></i>.</span><br />
+
+"Nature," 6<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_295" id="page_295">{295}</a></span><br />
+
+Nebular hypothesis, <a href="#page_011">11</a>, <a href="#page_045">45</a>, <a href="#page_048">48</a><br />
+
+Newman, Cardinal&mdash;on the nature of laws, <a href="#page_017">17</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on law and causality, <a href="#page_099">99</a></span><br />
+
+Newton, Sir I., his laws of motion, <a href="#page_039">39</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on evidence for theism, <a href="#page_103">103</a></span><br />
+
+<i>North British</i> Reviewer&mdash;on the limits of variation, <a href="#page_162">162</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the facility with which Darwinian arguments can be found, <a href="#page_177">177</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Darwinism and geographical distribution, <a href="#page_184">184</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the "maybe's" of Darwinism, <i>ibid.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on incompatibility of geological evidence with evolutionary theory, <a href="#page_228">228</a></span><br />
+<br />
+
+Obrecht, Martha, <a href="#page_077">77</a><br />
+
+<i>Ontogeny,</i> <a href="#page_083">83</a> n.<br />
+
+Organic progression&mdash;and Darwinism, <a href="#page_186">186</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not evidenced by pal�ontology, <a href="#page_234">234</a></span><br />
+
+Organs, vestigial or rudimentary as an argument for evolution, <a href="#page_158">158</a>, <a href="#page_189">189</a><br />
+
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, appearance of, <a href="#page_151">151</a><br />
+
+Owen, Sir R.&mdash;on the <i>Arch�opteryx</i>, <a href="#page_172">172</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Pain and suffering, as an objection to Design, <a href="#page_119">119</a>, <a href="#page_121">121</a><br />
+
+Pal�ontology&mdash;the only sound basis for evolutionary theory, <a href="#page_204">204</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its evidence adverse to progressive developments, <a href="#page_234">234</a></span><br />
+
+Paley&mdash;his "watch argument" disproved by machine-made watches, <a href="#page_118">118</a><br />
+
+Pasteur, M.&mdash;on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_050">50</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on initial temperature of life, <a href="#page_057">57</a> n.</span><br />
+
+Peacock's feathers and Natural Selection, <a href="#page_155">155</a> n., <a href="#page_175">175</a><br />
+
+Perrier, M. E.&mdash;on the evidence for Evolution, <a href="#page_237">237</a><br />
+
+Pettigrew, Mr.&mdash;on wings of birds, <a href="#page_093">93</a><br />
+
+<i>Phylogeny</i>, <a href="#page_083">83</a> n.<br />
+
+<i>Prothyle</i>, <a href="#page_042">42</a><br />
+
+Protoplasm, <a href="#page_059">59-63</a><br />
+
+Purpose and natural laws, <a href="#page_122">122</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Quatrefages, M. de&mdash;on life and non-life, <a href="#page_063">63</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on crystallization, <a href="#page_064">64</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on variation in Nature, <a href="#page_162">162</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Darwinian argumentation, <a href="#page_180">180</a>, <a href="#page_182">182</a>, <a href="#page_183">183</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on embryology, <a href="#page_194">194</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on absence of intermediate forms in Nature, <a href="#page_212">212</a>, <a href="#page_229">229</a></span><br />
+
+Quinton, M.&mdash;new doctrine of life development, <a href="#page_057">57</a> n.<br />
+<br />
+
+<i>Rana opisthodon</i>&mdash;embryology, <a href="#page_195">195</a><br />
+
+Rayleigh, Lord&mdash;on atheistic science, <a href="#page_105">105</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on scientific authority, <a href="#page_109">109</a></span><br />
+
+Reason generates speech, not <i>vice versa</i>, <a href="#page_076">76</a><br />
+
+Reptiles, age of, <a href="#page_226">226</a><br />
+
+Reptilian birds, <a href="#page_171">171</a><br />
+
+Rivarol&mdash;on God and the world, <a href="#page_279">279</a><br />
+
+Robin, M. Ch.&mdash;on Darwinism, <a href="#page_198">198</a><br />
+
+Romanes, Prof.&mdash;on continuity and universality of natural causation, <a href="#page_029">29</a>, <a href="#page_030">30</a>;<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_296" id="page_296">{296}</a></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on origin of language, <a href="#page_079">79</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Monism, <a href="#page_129">129</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the inadequacy of Natural Selection, <a href="#page_201">201</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on jealousy of admitting the Creator into creation, <a href="#page_277">277</a></span><br />
+
+Roscoe, Sir H.&mdash;on artificial production of protoplasm, <a href="#page_062">62</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Salamander, embryological features, <a href="#page_193">193</a><br />
+
+<i>Salix polaris</i>, its specific stability, <a href="#page_164">164</a>, <a href="#page_222">222</a><br />
+
+Saporta, Comte de&mdash;on parallel development of animal and vegetable life, <a href="#page_228">228</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the problem of Creation, <a href="#page_268">268</a></span><br />
+
+Schoolmen, the&mdash;on relation of soul and body, <a href="#page_132">132</a><br />
+
+Scorpion, maternal and unfilial instincts, <a href="#page_122">122</a><br />
+
+Selous, Mr. E.&mdash;exemplifies Monistic doctrines, <a href="#page_139">139</a> n.<br />
+
+Sensation and consciousness,&mdash;origin of, <a href="#page_067">67</a><br />
+
+Snakes, embryological features, <a href="#page_194">194</a><br />
+
+Species, on evolutionary principles must each derive from a single origin, <a href="#page_210">210</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">isolation of, <a href="#page_211">211</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">and genera, <a href="#page_244">244</a> n.</span><br />
+
+Specific stability in Nature, <a href="#page_164">164</a><br />
+
+Spencer, Mr. Herbert&mdash;on the beginning of life, <a href="#page_056">56</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his "Formula of Evolution," <a href="#page_145">145</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the process of organic evolution, <a href="#page_147">147</a></span><br />
+
+Spontaneous Generation. See <i><a href="#origin_of">Life, origin of</a></i><br />
+
+Stephen, Sir L.&mdash;on materialism, <a href="#page_078">78</a><br />
+
+Stewart, Prof. Balfour&mdash;on finite duration of the world, <a href="#page_001">1</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on dissipation of energy, <a href="#page_025">25</a>.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">See also <i>Stewart and Tait</i></span><br />
+
+<a name="Stewart_and_Tait" id="Stewart_and_Tait"></a>Stewart and Tait&mdash;on self-evidence of theism, <a href="#page_104">104</a>, <a href="#page_273">273</a><br />
+
+Stirling, Mr.&mdash;on protoplasm, <a href="#page_059">59</a>, <a href="#page_061">61</a><br />
+
+Stokes, Sir G. G.&mdash;on evidence for design, <a href="#page_104">104</a><br />
+
+Suarez&mdash;on creative power and natural law, <a href="#page_207">207</a><br />
+
+Substance, law of, <a href="#page_013">13</a>, <a href="#page_014">14</a>, <a href="#page_022">22</a>, <a href="#page_023">23</a>, <a href="#page_033">33</a>, <a href="#page_041">41</a>, <a href="#page_118">118</a><br />
+
+Survival of the fittest, and organic progression, <a href="#page_186">186</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Tait, Prof. P.&mdash;On the scope of science, <a href="#page_018">18</a>, <a href="#page_020">20</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on force and energy, <a href="#page_023">23</a> n.;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the properties of matter, <a href="#page_039">39</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on "pseudoscience," <a href="#page_040">40</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on scientific methods, <a href="#page_047">47</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on mechanical theories of life, <a href="#page_065">65</a>.</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">See also <i><a href="#Stewart_and_Tait">Stewart and Tait</a></i>.</span><br />
+
+Teleology&mdash;<a href="#page_098">98</a> <i>seq.</i><br />
+
+Theism, <a href="#page_097">97</a> <i>seq.</i>, <a href="#page_277">277</a><br />
+
+Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W.&mdash;on protoplasm, <a href="#page_060">60-62</a><br />
+
+<i>Thyroid</i> gland&mdash;its lesson, <a href="#page_191">191</a> n.<br />
+
+Time, as a factor in Evolution, <a href="#page_080">80</a>, <a href="#page_169">169</a><br />
+
+Transformism, <a href="#page_142">142</a>, etc.<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">See <i><a href="#Organic">Evolution, organic</a></i></span><br />
+
+<i>Triton alpestris</i>, 195<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_297" id="page_297">{297}</a></span><br />
+
+Tyndall, Prof.&mdash;on the material origin of life, <a href="#page_038">38</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the beginning of life, <a href="#page_046">46</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on scientific method, <a href="#page_047">47</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_054">54-56</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the potentialities of matter, <a href="#page_054">54</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on mind and matter, <a href="#page_133">133</a></span><br />
+<br />
+
+Ungulates, structure of limbs, <a href="#page_241">241</a><br />
+<br />
+
+Variation, the basis of Darwin's calculations, <a href="#page_162">162</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its limitations, <i>ibid.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">minute at each stage, <a href="#page_165">165</a></span><br />
+
+<i>Verbum mentale</i>, <a href="#page_076">76</a><br />
+
+Vines, Prof. S. H.&mdash;on speculations and facts, <a href="#page_185">185</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the present status of the Darwinian theory, <a href="#page_202">202</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on our present knowledge, <a href="#page_237">237</a></span><br />
+
+Virchow, Prof.&mdash;on the beginning of life, <a href="#page_046">46</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on spontaneous generation, <a href="#page_065">65</a></span><br />
+
+Vogt, Carl&mdash;on embryology, <a href="#page_194">194</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on Haeckel's genealogies, <a href="#page_264">264</a></span><br />
+<br />
+
+Wallace, Mr. A. R.&mdash;on breaches of natural causation, <a href="#page_064">64</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the origin of life, <i>ibid.</i>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the origin of animal life, <a href="#page_069">69</a>, <a href="#page_070">70</a></span><br />
+
+Weismann, Prof.&mdash;on our intellectual need for causality, <a href="#page_101">101</a><br />
+
+Weldon, Prof.&mdash;on Huxley's scientific method, <a href="#page_021">21</a>, <a href="#page_197">197</a><br />
+
+Whales, appearance of, <a href="#page_257">257</a><br />
+
+Whitney, Prof.&mdash;on origin of language, <a href="#page_079">79</a><br />
+
+Will, the only cause known to us, <a href="#page_099">99</a>, <a href="#page_100">100</a>.<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">See also <i><a href="#Free-will">Free-will</a></i></span><br />
+
+Williamson, Prof. W. C.&mdash;on missing links, <a href="#page_231">231</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on an unrecognized factor in life-developments, <a href="#page_232">232</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on the geological history of fishes, <a href="#page_233">233</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on genealogy of the <i>equid�</i>, <a href="#page_251">251</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on lack of pal�ontological support for the Evolution theory, <a href="#page_260">260</a></span><br />
+
+Wings, as machines, <a href="#page_093">93</a><br />
+
+Wollaston, Mr.&mdash;on "Nature" as an agent, <a href="#page_108">108</a><br />
+
+World, beginning of, <a href="#page_001">1</a><br />
+
+<i>Zeuglodon</i>, <a href="#page_257">257</a><br />
+</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_298" id="page_298">{298}</a></span></p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_299" id="page_299">{299}</a></span></p>
+
+<hr class="full" />
+
+<p class="c lg">A LIST OF WORKS<br />
+MAINLY BY<br />
+ROMAN CATHOLIC<br />
+WRITERS</p>
+
+<p class="c">TABLE OF CONTENTS</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td align="right" colspan="2"><small>PAGE</small></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The Westminster Library</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind2">2</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The Catholic Church</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind3">3</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">For the Clergy and Students</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind4">4</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Biography</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind6">6</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">History</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind8">8</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The Beginnings of the Church</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind8">8</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Educational</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind9">9</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Stonyhurst Philosophical Series</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind10">10</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Poetry, Fiction, etc.</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind10">10</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Novels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell)</span> &nbsp;</td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind11">11</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Works by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind11">11</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Works by Cardinal Newman</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#page_ind12">12</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind1" id="page_ind1">{1}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="c lg">LONGMANS, GREEN, &amp; CO.</p>
+
+<p class="c">39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.<br />
+91-93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK<br />
+8 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY<br />
+303 BOWBAZAR STREET, CALCUTTA.<br />
+1909<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind2" id="page_ind2">{2}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="c">The Westminster Library.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">A Series of Manuals for Catholic Priests and Students.</p>
+
+<p class="c">Edited by the Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD, President of St. Edmund's
+College, and the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE TRADITION OF SCRIPTURE: its Origin, Authority and Interpretation. By
+the Very Rev. WILLIAM BARRY, D.D., Canon of St. Chads, Birmingham. Crown
+8vo. 3s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By the Right Rev. <span class="smcap">John</span> CUTHBERT HEDLEY, Bishop of
+Newport. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS: An Introduction to Hagiography. From the
+French of P�re H. DELEHAYE, S.J., Bollandist. Translated by Mrs. V. M.
+CRAWFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE PRIEST'S STUDIES. By the Very Rev. <span class="smcap">Thomas</span> SCANNELL, D.D., Canon of
+Southwark Cathedral, Editor of <i>The Catholic Dictionary</i>. Crown 8vo. 3s.
+6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="c">The following Volumes are in Preparation:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR. By the Rev. <span class="smcap">Herbert</span> THURSTON, S.J.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS. By the Rev. Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. By the Right Rev. Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE BREVIARY. By the Rev. <span class="smcap">Edward Myers</span>, M.A.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. By the Rev. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE MASS. By the Rev. <span class="smcap">Adrian Fortescue</span>, Ph.D., D.D.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind3" id="page_ind3">{3}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb">The Catholic Church.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WITHIN. With a Preface by His Eminence CARDINAL
+VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">LETTERS FROM THE BELOVED CITY. TO S. B. FROM PHILIP. By the Rev. KENELM
+DIGBY BEST. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Contents.</span>&mdash;Why Philip writes these Letters to S. B.&mdash;S. B.'s
+Difficulties fully stated&mdash;The Good Shepherd&mdash;I come that they may have
+life&mdash;Feed my Lambs&mdash;Feed my Sheep&mdash;One Fold and One Shepherd&mdash;Christ's
+Mother and Christ's
+Church&mdash;Unity&mdash;Holiness&mdash;Catholicity&mdash;Apostolicity&mdash;Our Lady's
+Dowry&mdash;War&mdash;Pacification.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LENT AND HOLY WEEK: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. By
+HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">BISHOP GORE AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. By Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 8vo.
+Paper covers, 6d. <i>net</i>; cloth, 1s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">ASPECTS OF ANGLICANISM; or, Some Comments on Certain Incidents in the
+'Nineties. By Mgr. JAMES MOYES, D.D., Canon of Westminster Cathedral.
+Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. <i>net.</i> Paper Covers 2s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">*** <i>This book is a free comment from a Roman Catholic
+standpoint upon certain incidents in the religious life of Anglicanism
+in the 'Nineties. It deals incidentally with the Lambeth Judgment, and
+with the question of continuity. It represents the criticism which, from
+the point of view of history and theology, some of the later
+developments of Anglicanism would suggest to a Roman Catholic mind.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">DIVINE AUTHORITY. By J. F. <span class="smcap">Scholfield,</span> M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge,
+late Rector of St. Michael's, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">INFALLIBILITY: a Paper read before the Society of St. Thomas of
+Canterbury. By the Rev. VINCENT McNABB, O.P. Crown 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+<i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-DISCIPLINE. By the Rev. B. W. MATURIN. Crown
+8vo. 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">LAWS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE INNER LIFE OF THE SOUL. Short Spiritual Messages for the
+Ecclesiastical Year. By S. L. EMERY. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. <i>net.</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind4" id="page_ind4">{4}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb">For the Clergy and Students.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE TRAINING OF A PRIEST: an Essay on Clerical Education. By the Rev.
+JOHN TALBOT SMITH, LL.D., President of the Catholic Summer School of
+America. Crown 8vo. 6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">SCHOLASTICISM, Old and New: an Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy,
+Medi�val and Modern. By M. de WULF, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy
+and Letters, Professor at the University of Louvain. Translated by P.
+COFFEY, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Maynooth College, Ireland. 8vo.
+6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By SYLVESTER JOSEPH HUNTER, S.J. Crown
+8vo. Three vols., 6s. 6d. each.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE SERMON OF THE SEA, and Other Studies. By the Rev. ROBERT KANE, S.J.
+Crown 8vo. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">STUDIES ON THE GOSPELS. By <span class="smcap">Vincent Rose</span>, O.P., Professor in the
+University of Fribourg. Authorised English Version, by ROBERT FRASER,
+D.D., Domestic Prelate to H.H. Pius X. Crown 8vo. 6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE. By <span class="smcap">Austin</span> O'MALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.,
+Pathologist and Ophthalmologist to Saint Agnes's Hospital, Philadelphia;
+and JAMES J. WALSH, Ph.D., LL.D., Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the
+New York Polytechnic School for Graduates in Medicine. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
+<i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>*** <i>The term "Pastoral Medicine" may be said to represent that
+part of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those
+divisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his
+practice. This book is primarily intended for Roman Catholic
+confessors.</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind5" id="page_ind5">{5}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. By Rev. <span class="smcap">Michael</span> CRONIN, M.A., D.D., Ex-Fellow,
+Royal University of Ireland; Professor, Clonliffe College, Dublin. 8vo.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">Vol. 1., General Ethics. 12s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE KEY TO THE WORLD'S PROGRESS: an Essay on Historical Logic, being
+some Account of the Historical Significance of the Catholic Church. By
+CHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>Popular Edition. Paper covers, 6d.</p>
+
+<p>*** <i>The object of this book is to give to the logic and
+history of Newman an economic or sociological setting, and thus to show
+that "for the explanation of World-history we must first have the true
+theory of the Christian Church and her life through eighteen centuries".
+Part I. states briefly the problems which the philosophy of history
+seeks to resolve. Part II. presents the solution offered by Christianity
+and takes the form of an historical analysis of the principles by which
+the Church has been guided in her relations with the world.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">"IN THY COURTS" (La Vocation � la Vie Religieuse). Translated from the
+French of LOUIS VIGNAT, S.J. By MATTHEW L. FORTIER, S.J. 18mo. 1s. 6d.
+<i>net.</i> In paper covers, 1s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">CORDS OF ADAM: a Series of Devotional Essays with an Apologetic Aim. By
+the Rev. THOMAS J. GERRARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">"I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bonds of
+love."&mdash;<i>Osee</i> xi. 4.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER. An Enquiry how far Modern Science
+has altered the aspect of the Problem of the Universe. By JOHN GERARD,
+S.J., F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>Popular Edition. Paper Covers. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE MONTH; A Catholic Magazine. Conducted by FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF
+JESUS. Published Monthly. 8vo. Sewed, 1s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">INDEX TO THE MONTH, 1864-1908. Arranged under Subjects and Authors. 8vo.
+Cloth. 3s. 6d. <i>net.</i> Interleaved with Writing Paper. 5s. <i>net.</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind6" id="page_ind6">{6}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Biography.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE HISTORY OF ST. DOMINIC, FOUNDER OF THE FRIAR PREACHERS. By AUGUSTA
+THEODOSIA DRANE. With 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE HISTORY OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER COMPANIONS. With a
+Translation of her Treatise on Consummate Perfection. By the same
+Author. With 10 Illustrations. Two vols. 8vo. 15s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">A MEMOIR OF MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D. (AUGUSTA THEODOSIA DRANE),
+some time Prioress Provincial of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters
+of St. Catherine of Siena, Stone. With portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LIFE OF ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, DUCHESS OF THURINGIA. By the COUNT DE
+MONTALEMBERT, Peer of France, Member of the French Academy. Translated
+by FRANCIS DEMING HOYT. Large Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">HISTORY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, Founder of the Congregation of the
+Mission (Vincentians), and of the Sisters of Charity. By Monseigneur
+BOUGAUD, Bishop of Laval. Translated from the Second French Edition by
+the Rev. JOSEPH BRADY, C.M. With an Introduction by His Eminence
+CARDINAL VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
+<i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">HENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES. By ALICE SHIELD. With an
+Introduction by ANDREW LANG. With Photogravure Frontispiece and 13 other
+<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind7" id="page_ind7">{7}</a></span>Illustrations. 8vo. 12s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">EXPLORERS IN THE NEW WORLD BEFORE AND AFTER COLUMBUS, and THE STORY OF
+THE JESUIT MISSIONS OF PARAGUAY. By MARION McMURROUGH MULHALL, Member of
+The Roman Arcadia. With pre-Columban Maps. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CARDINAL WISEMAN. By WILFRID WARD. With 3
+Portraits. Two vols. Cr. 8vo. 10s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">AUBREY DE VERE: a Memoir based on his unpublished Diaries and
+Correspondence. By the same Author. With Two Photogravure Portraits and
+2 other Illustrations. 8vo. 14s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>TEN PERSONAL STUDIES. By the same Author. With 10 Portraits. 8vo. 10s.
+6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Contents.</span>&mdash;Arthur James Balfour&mdash;Three Notable Editors: Delane, Hutton,
+Knowles&mdash;Some Characteristics of Henry Sidgwick&mdash;Robert, Earl of
+Lytton&mdash;Father Ignatius Ryder&mdash;Sir M. E. Grant Duff's Diaries&mdash;Leo
+XIII.&mdash;The Genius of Cardinal Wiseman&mdash;John Henry Newman&mdash;Newman and
+Manning&mdash;Appendix.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">SOME PAPERS OF LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, 12th BARON, COUNT OF THE HOLY
+ROMAN EMPIRE, Etc. With a Preface by the Dowager LADY ARUNDELL OF
+WARDOUR. With Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">HISTORICAL LETTERS AND MEMOIRS OF SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, 1625-1793. By the
+Rev. W. FORBES LEITH, S.J. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2
+vols. Medium 8vo. 24s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">ESSAYS. By <span class="smcap">Father Ignatius Ryder</span>. Edited by the Rev. F. BACCHUS. 8vo.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Contents.</span>&mdash;<i>Biographical and Historical.</i> 1. A Jesuit Reformer and
+Poet&mdash;2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)&mdash;3. Savonarola&mdash;4.
+M. Emery&mdash;5. The Great Schism. <i>General.</i>&mdash;6. Auricular Confession&mdash;7.
+The Pope and the Anglican Archbishops&mdash;8. Ritualism, Romanism, etc.&mdash;9.
+Some Ecclesiastical Miracles&mdash;10. Irresponsible Opinion&mdash;11. The Ethics
+of War&mdash;12. The Passion of the Past&mdash;13. Reminiscences of a Jail
+Chaplain.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind8" id="page_ind8">{8}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">History.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN NORTH AMERICA: Colonial and Federal.
+By THOMAS HUGHES of the same Society. Royal 8vo.</p>
+
+<p>Text. Volume I. From the First Colonization, 1580, till 1645. With 3
+Maps and 3 Facsimiles. 15s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>Documents. Volume I. Part I. Nos. 1-140 (1605-1838). 21s. <i>net.</i>
+Documents. Volume I. Part II. [<i>In the Press.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE INQUISITION: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power
+of the Church. By the Abb� E. VACANDARD. Translated from the French by
+the Rev. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, C.S.P. Crown 8vo. 6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BISHOP CHALLONER, 1691-1781. By EDWIN H. BURTON,
+D.D., F.R.Hist.S., Vice-President of St. Edmund's College. With 34
+Portraits and other Illustrations. In two volumes. 8vo.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN ENGLAND, 1781-1803. By BERNARD WARD,
+F.R.Hist.S., President of St. Edmund's College, Ware. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s.
+<i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">The Beginnings of the Church.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">A Series of Histories of the First Century.</p>
+
+<p class="c">By the Abb� CONSTANT FOUARD, Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the
+Faculty of Theology at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated by GEORGE F. X.
+GRIFFITH.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. A Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
+With an Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. With 3 Maps. Two vols. Crown
+8vo. 14s.</p>
+
+<p>Popular Edition. 8vo. 1s. <i>net.</i> Paper Covers. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">ST. PETER AND THE FIRST YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. With 3 Maps. Crown 8vo.
+9s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">ST. PAUL AND HIS MISSIONS. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE LAST YEARS OF ST. PAUL. With 5 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 9s.</p>
+
+<p>ST. JOHN AND THE CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind9" id="page_ind9">{9}</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Educational.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. By E. WYATT-DAVIES, M.A. With
+14 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">OUTLINES OF BRITISH HISTORY. By the same Author. With 85 Illustrations
+and 13 Maps. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">A HISTORY OF IRELAND FOR AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. From the Earliest
+Times to the Death of O'Connell. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. With specially
+constructed Map and 160 Illustrations, including Facsimile in Full
+Colours of an Illuminated Page of the Gospel Book of MacDurnan, A.D.
+850. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.</p>
+
+<p><i>This is the authorised Irish History for Catholic Schools and Colleges
+throughout Australasia.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">HISTORICAL ATLAS OF INDIA, for the Use of High Schools, Colleges and
+Private Students. By CHARLES JOPPEN, S.J. 26 Maps in Colours. Post 4to.
+3s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">DELECTA BIBLICA. Compiled from the Vulgate Edition of the Old Testament,
+and arranged for the use of Beginners in Latin. By a SISTER OF NOTRE
+DAME. Crown 8vo. 1s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC. By G. H. JOYCE, S.J., M.A., Oxford, Professor of
+Logic at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. 8vo. 6s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">PARLEZ-VOUS FRAN�AIS? OU LE FRAN�AIS ENSEIGN� D'APR�S LA M�THODE
+DIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustr� par N. M. W. Crown 8vo. 1s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">GRAMMAR LESSONS. By the <span class="smcap">Principal of St.</span> MARY'S HALL, Liverpool. Crown
+8vo. 2s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE CLASS TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION. By the same Author. Crown
+8vo. 2s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">QUICK AND DEAD? To Teachers. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind10" id="page_ind10">{10}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Stonyhurst Philosophical Series.</p>
+
+<p class="c">Edited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LOGIC. By <span class="smcap">Richard F. Clarke,</span> S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">FIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By <span class="smcap">John</span> RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">MORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown
+8vo. 5s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">GENERAL METAPHYSICS. By <span class="smcap">John Rickaby</span>, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PSYCHOLOGY, <span class="smcap">Empirical and Rational</span>. By MICHAEL MAHER, S.J., D.Litt.,
+M.A. Lond. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">NATURAL THEOLOGY. By <span class="smcap">Bernard Boedder</span>, M.A., S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">POLITICAL ECONOMY. By <span class="smcap">Chas. S. Devas</span>, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Poetry, Fiction, etc.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">A MYSTERY PLAY IN HONOUR OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD. By the Rev. ROBERT
+HUGH BENSON. With Illustrations, Appendices, and Stage Directions. Cr.
+8vo. 2s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">Words only. With a few notes. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">STORIES ON THE ROSARY. By <span class="smcap">Louise Emily</span> DOBR�E. Parts I., II., III. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d. each.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">A TORN SCRAP BOOK. Talks and Tales illustrative of the "Our Father". By
+GENEVI�VE IRONS. With a Preface by the Rev. R. HUGH BENSON. Crown 8vo.
+2s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">MARIALE NOVUM: a Series of Sonnets on the Titles of Our Lady's Litany.
+By MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. Printed on hand-made paper, and
+bound in art green canvas, with cover design in blue and gilt, gilt top.
+Pott 4to. 3s. 6d. <i>net.</i> Leather, 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">ONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. <span class="smcap">Wilfrid Ward</span>. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">OUT OF DUE TIME. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">GREAT POSSESSIONS. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind11" id="page_ind11">{11}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Novels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell).</p>
+
+<p class="hang">SIMPLE ANNALS. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">DORSET DEAR: Idylls of Country Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LYCHGATE HALL: a Romance. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">CHRISTIAN THAL: a Story of Musical Life. Cr. 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE MANOR FARM. With Frontispiece by Claude C. du Pr� Cooper. Crown 8vo.
+6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">FIANDER'S WIDOW. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">YEOMAN FLEETWOOD. Crown 8vo. 3s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Works by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LISHEEN; or, The Test of the Spirits. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LUKE DELMEGE. A Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">GLENANAAR: a Story of Irish Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE BLINDNESS OF THE REVEREND DR. GRAY; or, the Final Law: a Novel of
+Clerical Life. 6s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">"LOST ANGEL OF A RUINED PARADISE": a Drama of Modern Life. Crown 8vo.
+3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PARERGA: being a Companion Volume to "Under the Cedars and the Stars".
+Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">EARLY ESSAYS AND LECTURES. Cr. 8vo. 6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Contents.</span>&mdash;<i>Essays.</i> Religious Instruction in Intermediate Schools&mdash;In a
+Dublin Art Gallery&mdash;Emerson&mdash;Free-Thought in America&mdash;German
+Universities (Three Essays)&mdash;German and Gallic Muses&mdash;Augustinian
+Literature&mdash;The Poetry of Matthew Arnold&mdash;Recent Works on St.
+Augustine&mdash;Aubrey de Vere (a Study). <i>Lectures.</i> Irish Youth and High
+Ideals&mdash;The Two Civilisations&mdash;The Golden Jubilee of O'Connell's
+Death&mdash;Our Personal and Social Responsibilities&mdash;The Study of Mental
+Science&mdash;Certain Elements of Character&mdash;The Limitations and
+Possibilities of Catholic Literature.<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind12" id="page_ind12">{12}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb top5">Cardinal Newman's Works.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">1. SERMONS.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR, from the
+"Parochial and Plain Sermons". Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, between 1826
+and 1843. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">DISCOURSES TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p>OCCASIONAL SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">2. TREATISES.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">UNIVERSITY TEACHING considered in nine discourses. Being the First Part
+of "The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated". With a Preface by
+the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. <i>net.</i> Leather, 3s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">A GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. AN INDEXED SYNOPSIS OF NEWMAN'S
+"GRAMMAR OF ASSENT". By the Rev. JOHN J. TOOHEY, S.J. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">3. HISTORICAL.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">HISTORICAL SKETCHES. Three vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Vol. I.</span>&mdash;The Turks in their Relation to Europe&mdash;- Marcus Tullius
+Cicero&mdash;Apollonius of Tyana&mdash;Primitive Christianity.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Vol. II.</span>&mdash;The Church of the Fathers&mdash;St. Chrysostom&mdash;Theodoret&mdash;Mission
+of St. Benedict&mdash;Benedictine Schools.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Vol. III.</span>&mdash;Rise and Progress of Universities (originally published as
+"Office and Work of Universities")&mdash;Northmen and Normans in England and
+Ireland&mdash;Medi�val Oxford&mdash;Convocation of Canterbury.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. Reprinted from "Historical Sketches". Vol.
+II. With a Preface by the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s.
+<i>net.</i> Leather, 3s. <i>net.</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind13" id="page_ind13">{13}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb">4. ESSAYS.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">TWO ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p>1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture
+and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame? 6. An
+Argument for Christianity.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">ESSAYS, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two vols., with notes. Crown 8vo. 7s.</p>
+
+<p>1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Mennais. 5.
+Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican
+Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Huntingdon. 10.
+Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Antichrist of Protestants.
+12. Milman's View of Christianity. 13. Reformation of the XI. Century.
+14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">5. THEOLOGICAL.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">SELECT TREATISES OF ATHANASIUS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">TRACTS: THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p>1. Dissertatiuncul�. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
+Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.
+Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">6. POLEMICAL.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE VIA MEDIA OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+Vol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. Vol. II. Occasional Letters
+and Tracts.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">DIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I.
+Twelve Lectures. Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed
+Virgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p>Pocket Edition. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. 6d. <i>net.</i> Leather, 3s. 6d.
+<i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>Popular Edition. 8vo. Sewed, 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p><i>The "Pocket" Edition and the "Popular" Edition of this book contain a
+letter, hitherto unpublished, written by Cardinal Newman to Canon
+Flanagan in 1857, which may be said to contain in embryo the "Apologia"
+itself.</i><span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_ind14" id="page_ind14">{14}</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="cb">7. LITERARY.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">VERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">THE DREAM OF GERONTIUS. 16mo. Sewed, 6d. Cloth, 1s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>School Edition, with Introduction and Notes by Maurice Francis Egan,
+A.M., LL.D., Professor of English Language and Literature in the
+Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. With Portrait. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p>Presentation Edition, with an Introduction specially written for this
+Edition by E. B(L). With Photogravure Portrait of Cardinal Newman, and 5
+other Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, bound in cream cloth, with gilt
+top. 3s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>With Fac-similes of the original Fair Copy and of portions of the first
+rough draft. Together with a Biographical Sketch of the Rev. John
+Gordon, of the Congregation of the Oratory, to whom the poem is
+inscribed, containing an appreciation by Cardinal Newman. Imperial
+folio. 31s. 6d. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>*** <i>This issue is restricted to 525 copies, of which 500 are
+for sale.</i></p>
+
+<p class="hang">LOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">CALLISTA: A Tale of the Third Century. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="cb">8. DEVOTIONAL.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. Part I. Meditations for the Month of May.
+Novena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. Meditations
+and Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. Part III. Meditations
+on Christian Doctrine. Conclusion. Crown 8vo. 5s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<p>Also in Three Parts as follows. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. <i>net</i> each.</p>
+
+<p class="nind">Part I. THE MONTH OF MAY.<br />
+Part II. STATIONS OF THE CROSS.<br />
+Part III. MEDITATIONS ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE
+ENGLISH CHURCH. With a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's
+request, by ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.</p>
+
+<p class="hang">ADDRESSES TO CARDINAL NEWMAN, WITH HIS REPLIES, 1879-81. Edited by the
+Rev. W. P. NEVILLE (Cong. Orat.). With Portrait Group. Oblong crown 8vo.
+6s. <i>net.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3><a name="FOOTNOTES" id="FOOTNOTES"></a>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Collected Essays</i>, i. 35.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Lectures on Evolution</i>, Cheap Edition, p. 16.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Conservation of Energy</i>, � 210, p. 153.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., <i>The Lesson of Evolution</i> (1902), pp.
+9-11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, February, 1889. p. 173.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> This term is now applied almost exclusively to <i>physical
+science</i>, or that whose province is the observation of phenomena and
+inferences directly deducible from them. To avoid confusion, this sense
+of the word "Science" will be here adopted: it is nevertheless
+objectionable inasmuch as it implies that&mdash;as Professor Huxley following
+Hume would have it&mdash;sound knowledge is restricted, outside the field of
+mathematics, to "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and
+existence." But although all premisses or data of inference come to us
+first through the gates of sense, there is much, beyond the limits
+within which sensible experience is confined, to a knowledge of which
+inference can lead us, and of which we become certain before experience
+can verify what we have thus learnt. Thus a chipped flint or a fragment
+of pottery is universally recognized as evidencing the work of man: a
+single page of Virgil would suffice&mdash;apart from all other
+information&mdash;to prove its author to have been both a poet and a scholar:
+the shipwrecked mariner cast on an unknown shore argued soundly from the
+sight of a gibbet that he had reached a civilized land ruled by law. But
+more than this, Science herself proceeds on this principle to the
+recognition not only of forces, the character of which is known by
+previous experience, but of others concerning which she knows nothing at
+all, except through the very effects from which she argues. Thus, as all
+bodies left free are found to draw towards one another in a certain
+mode, it is concluded with absolute confidence that there is a force
+making them do so, although this is in itself utterly imperceptible, and
+is known only by the way in which bodies behave under what must be its
+influence. Yet, who questions the existence of Gravitation? In like
+manner, the phenomena of light force us to admit the existence of the
+Ether, as the medium through which its waves are transmitted. Yet, we
+are compelled to attribute to this medium qualities apparently so
+incompatible that, as the late Lord Salisbury said, Ether remains, "a
+half discovered entity." But little as we can realize its nature, we
+have no doubt that such a medium exists.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> "Value of the Natural History Sciences" (<i>Lay Sermons</i>), p.
+75.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Italics his.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>Confession of Faith of a Man of Science</i>, English
+translation, 1903, Preface, p. vii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, Cheap English Edition, p. 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>ibid.</i>, p. 85.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> And also, it should be added, travelling bodily through
+space with a movement of "translation."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> The 15th Chapter of Haeckel's <i>Natural History of
+Creation</i> is devoted to this point.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> <i>Confession of Faith of a Man of Science</i>, p. 32.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 78.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 86.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>An Easy Outline of Evolution</i>, by Dennis Hird, M.A.,
+Principal of Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 230.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Presidential Address</i>, <i>Section D</i>, <i>Zoology</i>, Leeds,
+1890.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 83.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> "Pseudo-Scientific Realism," <i>Collected Essays</i>, i, 68,
+74-78.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Newman, <i>Grammar of Assent</i>, p. 72. A "Law of Nature," as
+has already been said, is simply a statement of what <i>de facto</i> has
+always been found to occur under certain conditions, and may
+consequently be expected again. It is obvious however that such
+expectation is implicitly based on the existence of some cause capable
+of ensuring the result.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> "The Teaching of Natural Philosophy," <i>Contemporary
+Review</i>, Jan., 1878.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 83.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> See Wasmann "Gedanken zur Entwicklungslehre," <i>Stimmen aus
+Maria-Laach</i>, vol. 63, p. 298.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Contemporary Review</i>, ut sup., p. 301.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Professor Weldon, F.R.S., in the <i>Dictionary of National
+Biography</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Collected Essays</i>, v. 41.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 75.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Professor Garnett in the <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>. By
+"Force" is understood "any cause which tends to alter a body's natural
+state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line." Of the nature
+of such causes science professes to know very little, and as
+Clerk-Maxwell, who knew as much as most men, sang apropos of a lecture
+of Professor Tait's:
+</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td align="left">... Tait writes in lucid symbols clear one small equation;</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left">And Force becomes of Energy a mere space-variation.</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Balfour Stewart, <i>Conservation of Energy</i>, � 115; by
+Clerk-Maxwell, <i>apud</i> Garnett, <i>ut sup.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Tyndall, <i>Fragments of Science</i>, 5th Edition, p. 23.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>Conservation of Energy</i>, � 209.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> March 29, 1888.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> So of another effort in the same direction Capt. Hutton
+tells us: "The last champion in the field is Professor A. W. Bickerton,
+who thinks he has found a way in which this dismal conclusion, as he
+considers it, may be averted. But he is not very sure about it, and has
+to assume: first, that space contains now and always will contain, a
+large quantity of cosmic dust scattered through it with some approach to
+uniformity; and secondly, that the Universe consists of an infinite
+number of what he calls 'cosmic systems,' travelling through space,
+constantly throwing off dust in all directions and occasionally
+colliding. As all this is pure assumption and highly improbable, I
+cannot think that Professor Bickerton has brought forward any serious
+objection to the theory of the dissipation of energy, and his hypothesis
+must be added to the list of failures." (<i>Lesson of Evolution</i>, p. 14,
+<i>n.</i>)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>Lesson of Evolution</i>, p. 14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>Darwin and after Darwin</i>, p. 17.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 64.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> <i>�ber die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben
+Weltr�thsel</i>, Leipzic, 1882.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 64.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Du Bois-Reymond does not say that they are soluble, but
+only that he cannot pronounce them "transcendental."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Samuel Laing, <i>Modern Science and Modern Thought</i>, Cheap
+Edition, p. 19.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 86.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> P. 78.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> P. 64.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> <i>Origin of the Laws of Nature</i>, p. 23.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> <i>Belfast Address</i>, 1874.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons.</i> "On the Physical Basis of Life," p. 143.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Professor Tait, <i>Properties of Matter</i>, � 108.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> <i>Contemporary Review</i>, January, 1878, p. 301.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> <i>Story of Creation</i>, p. 11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> <i>Edinburgh Review</i>, October, 1903, p. 399.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Or "primal stuff." This looks remarkably like the old
+<i>Materia Prima</i> of the Schoolmen translated into Greek.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> <i>The Revelations of Radium.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 398.
+</p><p>
+{<i>Note.</i>&mdash;It is often assumed that the composite character of the
+atom&mdash;if fully established&mdash;must upset the Atomic Theory. This is not
+so; all that the new hypothesis does is to go further back in accounting
+for the Atomic Theory, and for all practical purposes things remain
+exactly as they were; except, indeed, that the dissolution of matter
+does away with what was held as one of the most assured conclusions of
+science.}</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> The Nebular Hypothesis itself is, of course, far from
+being an established certainty, and is not devoid of grave difficulties.
+Into these, however, it is not necessary now to enter.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> <i>Apud</i> Gaynor, <i>The New Materialism</i>, p. 83.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>, "Biology."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> <i>Apud</i> Gaynor, p. 84.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Professor Marsh.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Professor Dewar at Belfast, 1902.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> <i>Recent Advances in Physical Science</i>, 3rd Edition, p. 6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Gaynor, p. 102.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 18.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> <i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, p. 305.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Being the year in which this passage was written.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Viz. that of the derivation of life from life alone, as
+opposed to <i>Abiogenesis</i>, or its production from lifeless matter.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> See <i>Fragments of Science</i>, "Spontaneous Generation," for
+a full account.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> March 18, 1863. <i>Life and Letters</i>, i. 352.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> April 30, 1870. <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 17.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> <i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, p. 238.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 18.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> <i>Evolution and the Origin of Life</i>, 1874, p. 23.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>, "Biology."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> <i>Fragments of Science.</i> "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast
+Address."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> "Scientific use of the imagination."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> <i>Fragments of Science</i>, "Spontaneous Generation."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> "Vitality."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, May, 1886, p. 769.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Italics mine.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> It has been established by Pasteur and others that the
+highest temperature at which organic life is possible is 45�
+<i>Centigrade</i> (113� <i>Fahrenheit</i>). When the globe had cooled to this
+point from its primitive molten condition, the epoch of terrestrial life
+commenced.
+</p><p>
+According to what is perhaps the latest theory, that of M. Quinton, the
+temperature immediately below this, 44� <i>Centigrade</i>, remains always the
+best for living things, and those creatures are highest in the scale of
+life, and consequently the most developed, which have contrived means of
+keeping their internal heat at, or about, this level, despite the
+refrigeration of their surroundings. In their blood-heat M. Quinton
+therefore finds an absolute rule for fixing the relative rank of organic
+forms, and the date of their appearance; those whose blood is warmest
+being the most recently evolved. The results of this new system are
+sufficiently startling. Birds are to be classed as the highest and
+newest of all; while man, with the other <i>Primates</i>, has to take a much
+lower place, the ungulates, including the horse and donkey, and the
+carnivora, as dogs and cats, being his superiors. (<i>La Revue des Id�es</i>,
+January 15, 1904, pp. 29 seq.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> To Sir J. D. Hooker, March 29, 1863.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> To V. Carus, November 21, 1866.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> <i>As regards Protoplasm</i>, p. 21.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> <i>Encyclopaedia Britannica</i>, "Biology."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Printed in <i>Lay Sermons</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> <i>Nature</i>, June 5, 1902, p. 121.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> <i>Id. ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 27.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> <i>Presidential Address</i>, British Association, 1887.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> <i>Les Emules de Darwin</i>, ii. 66.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i> ii. 63.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> <i>Darwinism</i>, p. 474.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> The other stages presenting similar difficulties are the
+5th and 6th of Du Bois-Reymond's Enigmas, viz. the introduction of
+sensation or consciousness (animal life), and of rational thought and
+speech.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> <i>Contemporary Review</i>, January, 1878, p. 298.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> <i>Die sieben Weltr�thsel</i>, D. 82.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> Professor Huxley, it must be remarked, speaks of Homer as
+a "half savage Greek" (<i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 12), and intimates a mild
+wonder that such a being could share our feelings in presence of nature
+to so large an extent as his poems testify. This is undoubtedly a fine
+example of the good conceit of ourselves which the pursuit of science is
+rather apt to produce.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> <i>Darwinism</i>, p. 475.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, c. ii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> 54.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> In his paper read before the British Association at
+Oxford in 1847.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> <i>Lessons from Nature</i>, p. 89.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> See Mivart, <i>Origin of Human Reason</i>, p. 166.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> See Louis Arnould, <i>Une �me en prison</i>, and article "An
+imprisoned Soul," by the Ctesse. de Courson, <i>The Month</i>, January, 1902,
+p. 82.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, i. 57.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> i.e. ape-like.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> Quoted by Romanes, <i>Mental Evolution in Man</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 371.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> <i>Origin of Human Reason</i>, p. 385.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 379.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 46.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> "Ontogeny" signifies the genesis of the individual,
+"Phylogeny" that of the race. Accordingly, when rendered into ordinary
+language, declarations such as these, unsupported as they are by any
+evidence, are found to mean that the development of the individual,
+tells us all about the development of the individual, and the
+development of the race all about that of the race. Is it really
+supposed, as it would seem to be, that such points are scientifically
+settled by translating terms into Greek?</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> <i>Lavengro</i>, passim.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> <i>Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural
+Philosophy</i>, p. 38.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> <i>British Association Lecture</i>, 1873.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 93.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i> (5th Edition), p. 226.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Afterwards (April 17, 1863) Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir J. D.
+Hooker, "I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and
+used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant
+'appeared' by some wholly unknown process."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> At a later period Mr. Darwin modified his views as to
+what he still termed "that wondrous organ the human eye," writing thus
+(<i>Descent of Man</i>, ii. 166): "We know what Helmholtz, the highest
+authority in Europe on the subject, has said about the human eye: that
+if an optician had sold him an instrument so carelessly made, he would
+have thought himself fully justified in returning it."
+</p><p>
+It is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (<i>Vortr�ge und
+Reden</i>, i. 253, etc., English Edition, "<i>Popular Scientific Lectures</i>,"
+pp. 219, etc.), adding that "the eye has every possible defect that can
+be found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to
+itself." These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a
+good deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the
+first place, that in speaking as above he did so "from the narrow but
+legitimate point of view of an optician." Having then enumerated all the
+defects in question, he continues&mdash;"In an artificial camera, all these
+irregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not
+so, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of
+extreme difficulty to detect them." He adds that men in general not only
+are unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced
+to credit it. Also that they "almost always affect those portions of the
+field of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our
+attention." What is still more to the point, he observes, that the
+defects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is
+practical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical
+instrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that
+the eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or
+telescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they
+lack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes.
+"As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds
+Helmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very
+limitations set to its defects.... A man of any sense would not chop
+firewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the
+optical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to
+injury and slower in its development." Helmholtz therefore concludes
+that the eye is a product which "the wisest Wisdom may have
+pre-designed."
+</p><p>
+It thus comes very much to Pope's solution:
+</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td align="left">Why has not man a microscopic eye?</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left">For this plain reason: man is not a fly,&mdash;</td></tr>
+</table>
+<p>
+and in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about
+returning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap,
+unworthy of such a man.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> <i>Life of C. Darwin</i>, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C.
+Darwin, November 23, 1859.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> <i>Animal Locomotion</i> (International Scientific Series), p.
+180.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> <i>Origin of Laws of Nature</i>, p. 69.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> <i>Lectures on Evolution</i> (Cheap Edition), p. 37.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> <i>Philosophical Basis of Evolution</i>, passim.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> By a <i>Final Cause</i> is meant the predetermined result or
+end, towards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the
+ultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the
+<i>Final Cause</i> of striking a match: while the striking of the match is
+the <i>Efficient Cause</i> producing the light.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> <i>Grammar of Assent</i>, p. 69.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> <i>Familiar Lectures</i>, p. 458.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> "On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':" <i>Life of
+C. Darwin</i>, ii. p. 187.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, No. 2. Reprinted in <i>Lectures and
+Essays</i>, p. 388 (2nd Edition).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> <i>Studies in the Theory of Descent</i>, vol. ii. p. 710;
+<i>vid. Edinburgh Review</i>, October, 1902, <i>The Rise and Influence of
+Darwinism</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> <i>Ut sup.</i> p. 201.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> <i>Sic.</i> The sense evidently requires either that the "not"
+should be deleted, or "prove" be substituted for "disprove" in the
+preceding line. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from
+which I quote, but likewise in the <i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, p. 307,
+where this passage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's
+<i>Natural History of Creation</i>, under the title of <i>The Genealogy of
+Animals</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> <i>Life and Letters</i>, ii. 195.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 467.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> <i>De Natura Deorum</i>, ii. 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> <i>Principia, Schol. Gen.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> <i>Unseen Universe</i>, p. 47.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> <i>Burnett Lectures</i>, p. 327.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> See report of his words emended by himself, <i>Nineteenth
+Century and After</i>, June, 1903.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Bradford, 1873.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> Montreal, 1884.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> <i>Annals and Magazine of Natural History</i>, 3rd Series,
+vol. v. p. 138.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> "Reception of 'Origin of Species,'" <i>ubi sup.</i> p. 199.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> November 26, 1860.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> May 22, 1860.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 92.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> <i>The Scientific Basis of Morality</i>, by George Gore,
+LL.D., F.R.S., p. 31.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> May 22, 1860.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Bain, <i>De vi physica</i>, p. 76.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> <i>Origin of Laws of Nature</i>, p. 61.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> Lord Grimthorpe, <i>op. cit.</i> 85.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Letter to the <i>Times</i>, June 2, 1903</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> The term <i>Monism</i>, invented by Wolf, originally bore a
+different meaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to
+signify equally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind,
+and the idealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor
+Haeckel, as will be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two
+names for one thing.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> <i>Confession of Faith of a Man of Science</i> (English
+translation), p. 60.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> <i>Mind and Motion.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> <i>An Easy Outline of Evolution</i>, by Dennis Hird, M.A.,
+Principal of Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> <i>Confession of Faith of a Man of Science</i>, p. 51.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> <i>Presidential Address</i>, <i>Section A</i>, <i>British
+Association</i>, Norwich, 1868.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> "Mr. Darwin's Critics." (<i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, p.
+283.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> <i>Confession of Faith of a Man of Science</i>, p. 19.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is
+illustrated by Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting <i>Bird
+Watching</i>, where he casually observes, as a matter of course, that the
+"life-part" of a tom-tit is as important in the sum of things as
+Napoleon's (p. 248), and declares elsewhere, more formally (p.
+335)&mdash;"Surely, a beautiful butterfly, that, for all time, charms&mdash;and
+raises by charming&mdash;some number of those who see it, does more good on
+this earth than any single man or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no
+'foot-prints on the sands of time.' Homer, for instance, has left his
+<i>Iliad</i> and <i>Odyssey</i>, and these have been, and still are, mighty in
+their effects. But let them once perish, and Homer will be caught up and
+overtaken by almost any bird or butterfly&mdash;even a brown one."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> <i>First Principles.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> <i>Riddle of the Universe</i>, p. 92.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> As to the term "Chance" which he frequently used, Mr.
+Darwin wrote in one place (<i>Origin of Species</i>, Opening passage of c.
+v.): "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations&mdash;so common
+and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser
+degree with those in a state of nature&mdash;had been due to chance. This, of
+course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge
+plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." It is
+obvious, however, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we
+have heard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for
+it is absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of "Chance"
+quoted in the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind
+refuses to regard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know
+nothing, for that is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact,
+instinctively recognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if
+not due to purpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to
+the true and legitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed
+it. Occasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to
+defend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a
+factor.&mdash;<i>Vid. sup.</i>, c. xii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his
+system to <i>species</i>, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to
+the production of new <i>genera</i>, and even of divisions of the organic
+kingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus&mdash;apart from the most famous instance of
+all, treated by Darwin himself in his <i>Descent of Man</i>&mdash;it is now a
+cardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of
+life are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of
+development, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one
+identical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain
+that Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock,&mdash;and, still
+farther on, that at least all placental mammals&mdash;bats and whales,
+elephants and mice&mdash;trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, v.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, c. vii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, c. vi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye
+made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint,
+and now some small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel
+very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever
+I gaze at it, makes me sick." (<i>C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860.</i>)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> It will help to understand the nature of the task thus
+imposed upon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes
+on this subject (<i>Origin of the Laws of Nature</i>, p. 103):
+</p><p>
+"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular
+shapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays
+of light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our
+eye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of
+proper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring
+all the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point
+without confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made
+machines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of
+them and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass
+melted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been
+built up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar
+and complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand,
+though we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they
+are persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again
+some of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of
+animals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a
+membrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of
+brush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of
+light; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be
+divided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be
+as long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish
+them; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a
+brush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of
+all these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in
+that organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living
+creatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, c. vii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin
+supposed the workmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact
+and accurate than usually is the case,&mdash;there remains quite enough of
+architectural merit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to
+increase the mystery that the insects should thus appear to strive
+towards an ideal, which they frequently fail to satisfy.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> <i>Ranunculus ficaria.</i> It is remarkable that in the season
+of 1904 this plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in
+which such fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. xiv.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, Part I, c. i.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> <i>Biological Lectures and Addresses</i>, p. 202.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> <i>Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais</i> (1870), p.
+120.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> <i>North British Review</i>, June, 1867. Professor Huxley
+likewise declared this criticism to be of "real and permanent value."
+(<i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, 252.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> <i>La vie des �tres anim�s</i>, p. 102.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> Presidential Address Geologists' Association
+(<i>Proceedings</i>, vol. v. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in <i>Contemporary
+Review</i>, February, 1877, under the title "Evolution and the Vegetable
+Kingdom."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> See <span class="smcap">Appendix A.</span> <a href="#page_280a">p. 280a</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> <i>Variation in Animals and Plants</i>, p. 343. By H. M.
+Verney (International Scientific Series, 88).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> J. W. Barclay, <i>New Theory of Organic Evolution</i>, p. 90.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> Huxley, <i>Lectures and Essays</i> (Popular Edition), pp. 28,
+seq.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely
+discarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The
+wing of <i>Hesperornis</i>, for example, is now declared to be an instance of
+<i>degeneration</i> from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be
+considered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the
+descendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has
+yet been discovered. (See Pycraft's <i>Story of Bird Life</i>, p. 190.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> <i>Philosophical Transactions Royal Society</i>, 1863, p. 36.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, <i>Final
+Causes</i>, 2nd English Edition, p. 245.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, ii. 156.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> <i>Tablet</i>, May 26, 1888, p. 837.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> <i>Lessons from Nature</i>, p. 297.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, <i>i.</i> p. 57.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the
+suggestion is put in form of a question: "May not some unusually wise
+ape-like animal ...?"</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. vi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, c. viii.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only
+be mentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have
+no descendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of
+the whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their
+existence.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i> (1st Edition), ii. 385.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, i. 107.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 386.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> <i>Charles Darwin et ses pr�curseurs Fran�ais</i>, p. 151</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 167.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> <i>La vie des �tres anim�s</i>, p. 161.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Saint-Hilaire.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> <i>Les Emules de Darwin</i>, ii. p. 82.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> <i>North British Review</i>, July, 1867, p. 316.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> P. 313.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> November 5, 1903, <i>Journal of Botany</i>, January, 1904, p.
+32.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> Dr. Hudson, see <i>Nature</i>, February 20, 1890, p. 375.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. xi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 59.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> <i>History of Creation</i>, English Edition, ii. 353.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> <i>The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's
+"Nat�rliche Sch�pfungs-Geschichte."</i> The <i>Academy</i>, 1869. Reprinted in
+<i>Critiques and Addresses</i>, and <i>Darwiniana</i> (Collected Works).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is
+unknown, was supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found,
+however, that its removal entails <i>myxoedema</i>, a condition closely
+allied to cretinism.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> "Geological Contemporaneity." (<i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 206.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> Mr. Mivart, <i>Types of Animal Life</i>, p. 113.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> <i>Les Emules de Darwin</i>, ii. 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Mr. Mivart, <i>Tablet</i>, April 21, 1888.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> The Mexican <i>Axolotl</i>, the <i>Triton Alpestris</i>, and
+probably others.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> <i>Nature</i>, March 24, 1892.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> i.e. the Science of Causes.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> <i>Dictionnaire encyclop�dique des sciences m�dicales.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Thus having described in detail a series of experiments
+as to the effects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larv� of
+various <i>hymenoptera</i>, M. Fabre writes:
+</p><p>
+"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqu�s par
+Darwin." (<i>Souvenirs entomologiques</i>, 3rd Series, p. 330.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> <i>Journal of Linnean Society</i>, vol. xix.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> <i>Hibbert Journal</i>, January, 1903, p. 218.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> <i>Revue de Philosophie</i>, April 1, 1904.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> <i>Souvenirs entomologiques</i>, 3rd Series, p. 317.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> <i>Nature</i>, September 10, 1891.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> <i>Coming of Age of the Origin of Species.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> <i>De opere sex dierum</i>, ii. 10, n. 12.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> <i>Modern Idea of Evolution</i>, p. 97.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Darwin (<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 274, 6th Edition)
+considers it "incredible" that the same identical species should
+originate twice even under the very same conditions. In the following
+passage, Haeckel affirms such unity of origin in respect of a most
+remarkable species of wide-reaching affinities.
+</p><p>
+"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata,
+from the <i>Amphioxus</i> upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia,
+reptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single
+vertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and
+highly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of
+processes or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a
+vertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the
+course of the earth's history." (Address to Munich meeting of German
+Association, vid. <i>Nature</i>, October 4, 1877.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i> (6th Edition), p. 265.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> <i>Les Emules de Darwin</i>, ii., 76.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> <i>History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of
+Evolution</i> (1898).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> Harebell.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> According to the most recent system of classification,
+the Monopetal�, now re-christened <i>Sympetalae</i>, are ranked above the
+Polypetal�, the family of the <i>Compositae</i> being highest of all.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> <i>Proceedings</i>, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The
+substance of this address appeared as an article in the <i>Contemporary
+Review</i>, February, 1877, entitled, "Evolution and the Vegetable
+Kingdom."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> See Appendix B. p. 284.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> <i>Modern Ideas of Evolution</i> (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are
+supposed by most naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear
+presently to have become extinct, no traces of them having been found in
+the chalk, a formation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor
+Marsh tells us on this subject (<i>Nature</i>, September 27, 1877, p. 471):
+</p><p>
+"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence,
+either in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at
+essentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of
+Mammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens
+have been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and
+all are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in
+America, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at
+present only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the
+genus <i>Dromotherium</i>, supposed to be related to the insect-eating
+<i>Myrmecobius</i>, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe
+have yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet
+none of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of
+cretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> P. 118.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> P. 105.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> <i>Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme</i>, p.
+34.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> <i>Genesis of Species</i>, p. 129.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> <i>Charles Darwin</i>, p. 185.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> <i>Genesis of Species</i>, p. 130.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> <i>Types of Animal Life</i>, 149.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> <i>Genesis of Species</i>, p. 132.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of
+Natural Selection and Evolution" (<i>Essays and Addresses</i>, Owen's
+College, Manchester, p. 251).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> "Succession of Life on Earth." (<i>Half-hour Recreations</i>,
+2nd Series, p. 329.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> <i>Essays and Addresses</i>, Owen's College, Manchester, p.
+220, note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> See note, p. 238.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> "Geological Contemporaneity," 1862. (<i>Lay Sermons</i>, p.
+222.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> "Pal�ontology and Evolution," 1876. (<i>Critiques and
+Addresses</i>, p. 182.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269_269" id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> P. 187.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270_270" id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> P. 192.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271_271" id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> <i>Genealogy of Animals.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272_272" id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> <i>Natural History of Creation.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273_273" id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> <i>Le Transformisme</i>, pp. 337-340.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_274_274" id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> <i>Lectures on Evolution</i>, New York, 1876. Cheap Edition,
+p. 43.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275_275" id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> <i>Coming of Age of the Origin of Species</i>, etc.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_276_276" id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> <i>Essays on Controverted Questions</i>, p. 450.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277_277" id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> "Utebatur autem equo insigni, pedibus prope humanis, et
+in modum digitorum ungulis fissis; quem natum apud se, cum haruspices
+imperium orbis terrae significare domino pronuntiassent, magna cura
+aluit." (Suetonius, <i>Julius</i>, 61.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278_278" id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> The <i>radius</i> and <i>ulna</i> are the two bones of the forearm
+above the wrist; the <i>tibia</i> and <i>fibula</i> the corresponding bones of the
+leg above the ankle. In the horse, the <i>ulna</i> and <i>fibula</i> are almost,
+but not quite, lost.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279_279" id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> Animals and plants are placed in different <i>species</i> when
+the differences between them are only <i>relative</i>; in different <i>genera</i>,
+when such differences are <i>absolute</i>. Thus, for example, the size of
+teeth is considered relative; the number of teeth absolute.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280_280" id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> <i>American Journal of Science and Arts</i>, 3rd Series, vol.
+43 (1892), p. 351.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281_281" id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> <i>Modern Ideas of Evolution</i>, p. 119.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282_282" id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> <i>Types of Animal Life</i>, 205.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283_283" id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> Nicholson and Lydekker's <i>Manual of Pal�ontology</i>, ii.
+1362.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_284_284" id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. xi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_285_285" id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> <i>Lydekker</i>, p. 1361.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286_286" id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> <i>Evolution of the Horse</i>, 12.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287_287" id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> "Succession of Life on Earth" (<i>Recreations in Popular
+Science</i>, 2nd Series, p. 339).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288_288" id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> British Museum (<i>Nat. Hist.</i>) <i>Guide to fossil mammals
+and birds</i>, p. 38.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289_289" id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> <i>American Journal of Science and Art</i>, 3rd Series, vol.
+43 (1892), p. 351.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290_290" id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> <i>The Evolution of the Horse</i>, p. 16.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291_291" id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a> <i>Lydekker</i>, <i>ut sup.</i> p. 1363.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292_292" id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> Sir W. Flower, <i>The Horse</i>, p. 74.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293_293" id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> "It is a consequence of the theory of Natural Selection
+that identity of structure involves community of descent; a given result
+can only be arrived at through a given sequence of events; the same
+morphological goal cannot be reached by two independent paths." Milnes
+Marshall, <i>Biological Lectures</i>, 247.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294_294" id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. xi. "Geological Succession of
+Organic Beings."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295_295" id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> <i>Tablet</i>, April 21, 1888, p. 637.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296_296" id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> <i>Catalogue of Mammals</i>, etc., <i>ut sup.</i> p. 38.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297_297" id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> <i>Chain of Life</i>, p. 222.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298_298" id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> <i>Les Enchainements du Monde Animal</i> ... Mammif�res
+Tertiaires.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299_299" id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> <i>Chain of Life</i>, 227.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300_300" id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> It is the "fingers" of the bat's "hand" which support the
+wing membrane. Hence the scientific name <i>Cheiroptera</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301_301" id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> E.g. Dinotherium giganteum and Elephas meridionalis.
+(Vid. Gaudry, <i>op. cit.</i> 169.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302_302" id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> Lecture at Royal Institution, January 2, 1904.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303_303" id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> A remarkable instance of the need of caution is furnished
+by the history of the Dinotherium itself. From the teeth, first found,
+Cuvier set down the animal as a monster Tapir. Then, a whole skull being
+discovered, Herr Kaup of Darmstadt, commenting upon the danger of such a
+proceeding, himself classed the beast among the Edentata (Sloths, etc.),
+and afterwards among the Hippopotami. Buckland and Strauss thought it
+must have been an aquatic creature; Blainville and Pictet labelled it a
+Manatee, or sea-cow. (Vid. Gaudry, <i>op. cit.</i> 187-9.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_304_304" id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 191.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305_305" id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> Milnes Marshall, <i>Lectures on Darwinian Theory</i>, p. 66.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306_306" id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> See Appendix C. p. 285.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307_307" id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> <i>Modern Ideas of Evolution</i>, c. iv.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308_308" id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of
+Natural Selection and Evolution." (<i>Essays and Addresses</i>, Owen's
+College, Manchester, p. 200.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> <i>History of Creation</i>, ii. 92, English Edition.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 295.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> <i>Les Emules de Darwin</i>, ii. 76.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_312_312" id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> As an instance M. de Quatrefages cites Haeckel's own
+words, from his <i>Anthropogenie</i>. "The Vertebrate Ancestor No. 15, akin
+to the Salamanders, must have been a species of Saurian (Lizard). There
+remains to us no fossil relic of this animal; in no respect did he
+resemble any form actually existing. Nevertheless, comparative anatomy
+and ontogeny authorize us in affirming that he once existed. We will
+call this animal <i>Protamnion</i>."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313_313" id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 122.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314_314" id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> <i>Revue Scientifique</i> (1886), p. 486.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315_315" id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> (1877), I. 1101.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316_316" id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, c. x.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317_317" id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> <i>Genesis of Species</i>, p. 134.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318_318" id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> <i>Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme</i>, p.
+vi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319_319" id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 288.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_320_320" id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> <i>Life of Darwin</i>, ii. 193.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321_321" id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> <i>Epistle</i> I&mdash;to Pope.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322_322" id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> <i>Hibbert Journal</i>, January, 1903.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323_323" id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a> <i>Order of Nature</i>, p. 239.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324_324" id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> <i>Thoughts on Religion</i>, p. 123.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325_325" id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> <i>Presidential Address</i>, British Association, 1871.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> <i>Syst�me Analytique des Connaissances positives de
+l'homme</i> (1830), pp. 8, 43.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> <i>North American Slime Moulds</i>, Introduction, p. II.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328_328" id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> Bloud's <i>Science et Religion</i>, No. 431, pp. 50, seq.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329_329" id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> <i>Trait� de Microbiologie</i>, I., p. 253. Also the Magazine
+<i>Broteria</i> (Lisbon), Vol. vi., 1907, Botany, p. 23.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330_330" id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> See <i>Nature</i>, June 4, 1903, p. 113, in notice of a paper
+on the subject by Professor F. W. Oliver and Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331_331" id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> <i>Linnean Society's Proceedings</i>, May 3, 1906.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332_332" id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> See the <i>Congress Report</i>, vol. iv.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333_333" id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> <i>Transactions American Philosophical Society</i> (N.S.), 18,
+1896, pp. 119, 120.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334_334" id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> <i>The Origin and Influence of the Thorough-bred Horse.</i>
+Cambridge, 1905.</p></div>
+
+</div>
+<hr class="full" />
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by 
+John Gerard
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 33859-h.htm or 33859-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/8/5/33859/
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/33859-h/images/cover.jpg b/33859-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0687072
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp176_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp176_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..46e55ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp176_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp176_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp176_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ad466c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp176_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp218_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp218_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0bd1ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp218_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp218_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp218_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a36b464
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp218_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp224_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp224_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..20e3f8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp224_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp224_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp224_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63bccf9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp224_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp226_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp226_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b9433ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp226_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp226_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp226_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..224eaf7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp226_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp249_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp249_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..edbe57e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp249_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp249_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp249_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be3a5b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp249_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp253_lg.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp253_lg.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc0d5a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp253_lg.jpg
diff --git a/33859-h/images/illp253_sml.jpg b/33859-h/images/illp253_sml.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a88b508
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859-h/images/illp253_sml.jpg
diff --git a/33859.txt b/33859.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..363a119
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,10012 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by John Gerard
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer
+
+Author: John Gerard
+
+Release Date: October 15, 2010 [EBook #33859]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER
+
+     The Lord St. Alban would say to some philosophers--"Gentlemen,
+     nature is a labyrinth, in which the very haste you move with, will
+     make you lose your way."
+                                     BACON, _Apophthegms_.
+
+
+
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE
+AND THE NEWEST
+ANSWER
+
+BY
+JOHN GERARD, S.J., F.L.S.
+
+_FOURTH EDITION_
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON,
+NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
+
+1907
+
+
+
+
+ROEHAMPTON:
+
+PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+The enemies of Science are not the philistines alone--if any still
+remain--who would muzzle or stifle her. More numerous and dangerous are
+those--professedly of her own household--who ascribe to her pretensions
+of which she herself knows nothing, and strive to make her responsible
+for a philosophy entirely beyond her scope. With this object efforts are
+assiduously made to popularize the idea that nothing in heaven or earth
+is beyond her ken, and that she has rendered all such beliefs impossible
+as alone can satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity. At the same time
+the very brilliance of her achievements is apt to dazzle our eyes,
+blinding them to the extremely narrow limits of the field in which she
+can operate, and making us rush to the conclusion that she has solved
+the riddle which from the beginning of time Nature has offered to every
+thinking mind,--or at least that what her search-light cannot illumine
+must for ever remain unknowable.
+
+How far such assumptions are rational, it is the object of the present
+enquiry to examine by means of the evidence furnished by Science herself
+in her own regard.
+
+I have to thank Mr. W. E. Darwin for permission to use the illustration
+of feathers of the Argus Pheasant from his illustrious father's _Descent
+of Man_, and for the loan of blocks for the purpose. Through the
+courtesy of Messrs. Macmillan I am allowed to copy a portion of the
+plate in the late Professor Huxley's _Lectures on Evolution_,
+illustrating his pedigree of the Horse. If I forbear to mention others
+who have kindly supplied me with information, it is only lest it might
+be supposed that they are anywise responsible for the use I have made of
+it. The design on the cover of the present volume I owe to my friend Mr.
+Paul Woodroffe.
+
+J. G.
+
+_March_ 10, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
+
+
+In this edition, which has been thoroughly revised throughout, a few
+corrections have had to be made, especially in the Index, and in one or
+two instances alterations or additions have appeared advisable for the
+sake of clearness or accuracy of expression. Nothing has, however, as
+yet been brought to the author's notice which affects any substantial
+point in what he has written.
+
+_July_ 28, 1904.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
+
+
+This edition has again been thoroughly revised, and some new matter
+appended which bears on various points raised in the original volume,
+especially the establishment of the important group of the
+_Cycado-filices_, as affecting the succession of plant life on the
+earth, and recent evidence concerning the pedigree of the horse.
+
+_December_ 21, 1906.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+                                                                PAGES
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+Certainty that there was a Beginning of the World--What
+was there before?--The Great Problem, to be
+answered by Reason and Science                                    1-3
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+Principles of Reasoning--Scope and method of Science              4-7
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+EVOLUTION
+
+Term variously used for a Process and a Principle. We
+commence with the latter                                          8-9
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+Evolution as a Philosophy--Main features of the
+system                                                          10-14
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+Erroneous use of the term frequent: its scientific use          15-19
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+A combination of two other "Laws," viz.--The indestructibility
+of Matter, and the Conservation of
+Energy--But there is also Dissipation of Energy--Consequences
+inferred from this as to the Duration
+of the Universe                                                 20-28
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+The "Law of Continuity"--Alleged breaches--Seven
+evolutionary stages deduced to be scientifically
+unexplained, or even inexplicable                               29-34
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+Constitution and Properties of Matter inconsistent with
+Haeckel's evolutionary system--Also the Laws of
+Motion--Radium and its revelations                              35-44
+
+CHAPTER IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+Evolution here considered as a process--In its larger
+sense, postulates spontaneous generation--which,
+however, Science disallows--Protoplasm and Crystallization      45-66
+
+CHAPTER X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+Origin of simple sensation and consciousness even less
+explicable than that of life--Gulf between man
+and the lower animals--Language exclusively
+human--The significance of Free-will can be impugned
+only by the absurdity of denying its existence                  67-85
+
+CHAPTER XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+The order of the _Cosmos_ requires a Cause--No cause
+known to us can produce such a result except Intelligence--Hence
+we infer Purpose or Design and
+are led to Theism--Scientific evidence as to this,
+"the Grand Question"                                           86-109
+
+CHAPTER XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+What "Chance" means--It is the sole alternative to
+Purpose or Design--Arguments against Purposive
+Creation--The Existence of Pain--The Mysteries
+of Generation                                                 110-125
+
+CHAPTER XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+The Monistic Philosophy--Its utter lack of a scientific
+basis--Contradicted by the ideas of morality and
+truth--Not really adopted by Monists themselves               126-139
+
+CHAPTER XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+"Evolution" now to be considered in its most restricted
+signification--Organic Evolution, or "Transformism,"
+not identical with Darwinism--The
+nature of the questions before us                             140-148
+
+CHAPTER XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+Though no essential part of our enquiry, Darwinism
+must be studied on account of importance ascribed
+to it--Baseless claims on its behalf--True character
+of the system--Natural Selection and its mode of
+action--Phenomena which seem to favour Darwinism--Difficulties
+on the other side--Limits of
+Variation--Specific stability--Adverse probabilities--Natural
+selection can produce nothing--Transitional
+developments useless or harmful--Artistic
+ornaments unexplained--Flaws in argument--Organic
+progress--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--Scientific
+opinion as to Darwinism                                       149-203
+
+CHAPTER XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+Palaeontology furnishes the only sound basis for argument--The
+nature of the evidence required--The
+history of Life as known to us is inconsistent
+with evolutionary theories--Haeckel's "ante-periods"--Conclusion
+to which facts point                                          204-238
+
+CHAPTER XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+Arguments on behalf of Evolution--The genealogy of
+the Horse--Haeckel's Pedigree of Man--Darwin's
+plea of imperfection of the geological record--No
+evolutionary process is yet demonstrated; Still less
+has anything been done to establish Evolution as a
+creative force                                                239-269
+
+CHAPTER XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+Reason leads to conclusions which physical science cannot
+reach--The recognition of a First Cause beyond the
+Sensible Universe an intellectual necessity--Knowledge
+of this cause attainable by reason--Conclusion                270-280
+
+APPENDICES
+
+A. Recent Scientific Verdicts concerning Darwinism and
+Transformism                                                      281
+
+B. Development of Plant life--the _Cycadofilices_                 284
+
+C. The Course of Evolution                                        285
+
+D. The pedigree of the Horse: further evidence                    286
+
+INDEX                                                             289
+
+FOOTNOTES
+
+
+
+
+I
+
+TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING
+
+
+That the world as we know it had a beginning is a truth which there is
+no denying. Not only have philosophers always argued that it must be so:
+the researches of physical science assure us that it has been so in
+fact. Astronomy, says Professor Huxley,[1] "leads us to contemplate
+phenomena the very nature of which demonstrates that they must have had
+a beginning." The hypothesis that phenomena of Nature similar to those
+exhibited by the present world have always existed, the same authority
+assures us,[2] "is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as we
+have, which is of so plain and so simple a character that it is
+impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it forces
+upon us." This conclusion, physicists tell us, is inevitable when we
+study the laws by which the operations of Nature are governed, and as
+Professor Balfour Stewart writes,[3] we thus become "absolutely certain"
+that these operations cannot have existed for ever, and that a time
+will come when they must cease. In like manner, a recent and competent
+witness to the conclusions of contemporary Science, lays down,[4] as one
+of the truths which her latest discoveries compel us to accept, that the
+world is not eternal, that the earth is cooling from a state of heat
+rendering life impossible, to one of physical exhaustion equally fatal
+to it. Accordingly "Life must have had a beginning and must come to an
+end,"--and our whole Solar System (he adds) must similarly have had a
+commencement, at a period not infinitely remote.
+
+But, if the world had a beginning, what was there before it began?
+Something there must have been, and something which had the power of
+producing it. Had there ever been nothing, there could never have been
+anything, for, _Ex nihilo nihil fit_. That nothing should turn into
+something is an idea which the mind refuses to entertain. Nor is the
+case any better even if we suppose that matter had no beginning, that it
+has existed for ever as we know it now, and that at first there was
+nothing else. For if so, whence have all these things arisen which,
+according to all observation and experiment, matter cannot produce, as,
+organic life, sensitive life, consciousness, reason, moral goodness? Had
+matter been always what it now is, and had there been no source beyond
+matter whence the power of producing all these things could be derived,
+they could never have been produced at all, or else they would have
+come into being without a cause. It would be like a milestone growing
+into an apple-tree, or a mountain spontaneously giving birth to a mouse.
+
+We are therefore compelled by common-sense to ask when we consider
+Nature, What is the force or power at the back of her, which first set
+her going, and whence she draws the capability of performing the
+operations which we find her performing every day; that force or power
+which must be the ultimate origin of everything that is in the world?
+This is the great fundamental problem which the student of Nature has to
+face, and beside it all others fade into insignificance. It is with this
+that we are now engaged. We have to ask how our reason bids us answer
+it, and the first question which arises naturally is, What light is
+thrown on the subject by modern Science, of whose achievements we are
+all so justly proud?
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+REASON AND SCIENCE
+
+
+In studying a question such as this, we must commence by being
+determined, on the one hand to accept nothing as true but what our
+reason warrants us in believing, and on the other hand to follow the
+guidance of reason as far as, rightly used, it will lead us. The
+principle formulated[5] by Professor Huxley, as the foundation-stone of
+what he termed "Agnosticism," is that which must needs be adopted, and
+as a matter of fact has ever been adopted, by rational men.
+
+     Positively--in matters of the intellect follow your reason as far
+     as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
+     negatively--in matters of the intellect do not pretend that
+     conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
+
+But to justify the confidence which we thus repose in it we must
+obviously be careful to use our reason aright, and not to attribute to
+it any conclusions which it does not really sanction. It is this right
+use of reason that is specially claimed for modern "Science,"[6] which,
+as we are again assured by Professor Huxley, is only another name for
+sound reasoning--"_Science_," he declares,[7] "_is, I believe, nothing
+but trained and organized common-sense_.[8] ... The man of science, in
+fact, simply uses with scrupulous exactness, the methods which we all,
+habitually and at every moment, use carelessly."
+
+There can be no sort of question that so long as men of science really
+act thus, and confine themselves to the treatment of matters in regard
+of which they can claim special knowledge, common sense bids us listen
+to them with respect, and even with submission. But the same common
+sense requires that we should satisfy ourselves that they truly deserve
+the character assigned them, and pretend to no knowledge on the score of
+Science but what their scientific methods are competent to acquire. When
+they step beyond this their own proper domain, whatever weight may be
+given to their opinions upon other grounds, they cease to speak in the
+name of Science.
+
+What then, we must ask, is the province of Science, and what are her
+methods?
+
+"Science," always understanding by the term physical or experimental
+Science, deals with the universe so far as it is known to us through our
+senses. The universe known thus we call "Nature," and the whole stock in
+trade of Science is the examination and verification of natural
+phenomena, with such inferences therefrom as ascertained facts
+legitimately suggest. From careful and trustworthy observation she can
+learn what are called the "Laws of Nature," that is to say the manner in
+which the various elements and forces of the universe are found
+constantly to act, in given circumstances; she can, to some extent,
+discover the chain of causes and effects, or more properly of
+conditions and consequences, through which natural operations are
+carried on. She can even construct hypotheses as to what she cannot
+directly observe, namely, the nature of substances and forces; and such
+hypotheses are justified in proportion as they are found to tally with
+facts. If constantly thus justified, they are styled theories, and come
+to be practically assumed as established truths. But it must ever be
+remembered that Science can take no step in advance which is not based
+on fact, and that when facts are not forthcoming for its support an
+hypothesis or a theory has no scientific value.
+
+Bearing this in mind, we will proceed to enquire what Science has to
+tell us regarding the origin of the world, and the manner in which it
+has come to be what it is.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+"EVOLUTION"
+
+
+We are constantly assured that Science compels us to believe in
+"Evolution," and that in this doctrine is to be found the explanation of
+the universe whereof we are in quest. We must however in the first place
+make sure that we understand what "Evolution" means, and if we look into
+the question, it speedily appears that the term is very differently
+understood by those who use it.
+
+Some who style themselves "Evolutionists" mean only that, as a matter of
+established fact, the organic world, the world of life, whether animal
+or vegetable, has been brought to its present condition by _genetic_
+development of one species from another, in the natural course of
+descent and through the operation of natural laws; and that as we see
+plants and animals of the same kind propagated one from another at the
+present day, so in the course of long ages the lower and simpler forms
+of life have given birth to the higher and more complex.
+
+Others again do not limit this process to organic creatures, and believe
+that from first to last, the whole world, inorganic and organic alike,
+has resulted from the action of forces such as those with which Science
+deals; and that life has thus arisen in purely natural course out of
+non-living matter, the universe in its original condition having been
+constituted as a vast machine which was bound to produce all that has
+since arisen.
+
+In either of the above senses--of which the second obviously includes
+the first,--"Evolution" is understood as no more than a _process_ which
+is said to have occurred. But there is a more extreme school which takes
+"Evolution" for much more, namely for a power, principle, or "law,"
+which both governs and accounts for everything, and requires no further
+cause beyond itself.
+
+If this paramount "Law of Evolution" can be established, there is
+clearly an end of our enquiry, for here is the ultimate explanation of
+everything which we are seeking. But what has Science to say concerning
+it?
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION"
+
+
+That there is a self-existing and self-sufficing "Law of Evolution" to
+which everything in the world must be ascribed, is the doctrine of those
+Evolutionists who are most active in propagating their creed and who
+most loudly proclaim that it alone is scientific. The great leader and
+prophet of this school, Professor Ernst Haeckel, assures us[9] that he
+gives expression,
+
+     to that rational view of the world which is being forced upon us
+     with such logical rigour by the modern advancements in our
+     knowledge of nature as a unity, a view in reality held by almost
+     all unprejudiced and thinking men of science, although but few have
+     the courage (or the need) to declare it openly.
+
+The plain and rational conclusion thus exhibited is, he tells us,[10]
+the special glory of modern research.
+
+     It is true [he writes] that there were philosophers who spoke of
+     the evolution of things a thousand years ago; but the recognition
+     that such a law dominates the entire universe, and that the world
+     is nothing else than an eternal "evolution of substance," is a
+     fruit of the nineteenth century.
+
+So far as concerns the world which we actually inhabit, its first
+beginning, we must, he tells us, suppose[11] to have been a vast nebula
+of infinitely attenuated and light material, rotating upon its own
+axis.[12]
+
+     Given this first beginning of the cosmogonic movement, it is easy,
+     on mathematical principles, to deduce and mathematically establish
+     the further phenomena of the foundation of the cosmic bodies, the
+     separation of the planets, and so forth.
+
+Nor are we to suppose that the beginning of this particular process was
+in any true sense a beginning at all. Evolutionary philosophy such as
+Professor Haeckel's, necessarily teaches that beginnings and endings
+succeed one another everlastingly, one world-system arising phoenix-like
+from the ashes of another.
+
+     The nebular hypothesis above described has recently [we are
+     told][13] been strongly confirmed and enlarged by the theory that
+     this cosmogonic process did not simply take place once, but is
+     periodically repeated. While new cosmic bodies arise and develop,
+     out of rotating masses of nebula in some parts of the universe, in
+     other parts old, extinct, frigid suns come into collision, and are
+     once more reduced by the heat generated to the condition of nebulae.
+
+It appears, in fact, to be assumed that this cyclic process has been
+actually demonstrated, for we are told[14] that astronomy reveals, in
+the endless depths of space, "Millions of circling spheres, larger than
+our earth, and, like it, in an eternal rhythm of life and death."
+
+Moreover, "life" is here to be understood literally, for it is a
+cardinal article of such evolutionary belief that equally with the
+foundation of cosmic bodies and the separation of planets, the
+production of organic life, of plants and animals, has been wrought by
+forces which the material universe contains within itself,[15] and
+accordingly,[16]
+
+     We now definitely know that the organic world on our earth has been
+     continuously developed "in accordance with eternal iron laws." ...
+     An unbroken series of natural events, following an orderly course
+     of evolution according to fixed laws, now leads the reflecting
+     human spirit through long aeons from a primeval chaos to the
+     present order of the cosmos.
+
+Finally, at the back of all these processes, we are to recognize the one
+ultimate reality, the universe itself, which originates and undergoes
+all these evolutions. In its regard Professor Haeckel tells us[17] that,
+
+     The universe, or cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. Its
+     substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy) fills
+     infinite space and is in eternal motion. This motion runs on
+     through infinite time as an unbroken development, with a periodic
+     change from life to death, from evolution to devolution....
+
+And again:[18]
+
+     The two fundamental forms of substances, ponderable matter and
+     ether, are not dead and moved only by extrinsic force, but they are
+     endowed also with sensation and will (though naturally of the
+     lowest grade); they experience an inclination for condensation, a
+     dislike of strain; they strive after the one and struggle against
+     the other.
+
+Moreover,
+
+     Movement[19] is as innate and original a property of substances as
+     is sensation.
+
+Such is the raw material whose metamorphoses produce, or rather
+constitute, all possible worlds, while paramount over every thing
+dominates the "Law of Substance," under which title Professor Haeckel
+unites the scientific principles of the indestructibility of matter,
+and the conservation of energy. Thus is the conclusion reached,[20]
+
+     Towering above all the achievements and discoveries of the century
+     we have the great comprehensive "law of substance," the fundamental
+     law of the constancy of matter and force. The fact that substance
+     is everywhere subject to eternal movement and transformation gives
+     it the character also of the universal law of evolution. As this
+     supreme law has been firmly established and all others are
+     subordinate to it, we arrive at a conviction of the universal unity
+     of nature and the eternal validity of its laws.
+
+Accordingly we are to conclude with Goethe that all proceeds by iron law
+to the fulfilling of inevitable destiny; or as an ardent disciple
+proclaims, who undertakes to expound the new creed to the people,[21]
+
+     We rest in sure and certain hope that no force and no combination
+     of forces can stop the process of Evolution, which from a speck of
+     jelly has developed such living forms as Charles Darwin and Herbert
+     Spencer, and which has produced the beauty of the earth and the
+     heavens from formless ether.
+
+This outline of the Evolutionary system in its widest and fullest sense
+will enable us to judge upon what grounds it can claim the sanction of
+Science. Various points here present themselves for consideration, which
+demand separate treatment.
+
+
+
+
+V
+
+WHAT IS A "LAW OF NATURE"?
+
+
+As we have seen, the doctrine of Evolution is presented by its advocates
+as being based upon the existence of a "Law of Evolution," or "Law of
+Substance," which both brings about evolutionary processes, and
+certifies us of their occurrence, so that we may appeal to it as an
+authority for our belief in the facts of evolution themselves. Thus as
+Professor Milnes Marshall told the British Association,[22]
+
+     The doctrine of descent, or of evolution, teaches us that as
+     individual animals arise, not spontaneously, but by direct descent
+     from pre-existing animals, so also is it with species, with
+     families, and with larger groups of animals, and so also has it
+     been for all time.
+
+It is not said, be it observed, that the establishment of such facts
+teaches us the doctrine of evolution, but that the doctrine assures us
+of the facts; and the utterances constantly met with, of which the above
+is a fair sample, have no signification if they do not mean this. In
+the same way Professor Haeckel declares[23] that his fundamental cosmic
+law "establishes" the eternal persistence of matter and force, and their
+unvarying constancy throughout the entire universe, becoming thus "the
+pole-star that guides our Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth to a
+solution of the world problem," and the key to this supreme problem, he
+further tells us,[24] is found in one magic word--Evolution.
+
+It would certainly appear from all this, that by "Evolution" we are to
+understand some sort of entity at the back of the world, with power at
+its disposal capable of effecting all its operations,--something in fact
+remarkably like the First Cause of which we are in search,--and that by
+its "Laws" are signified some definite forces, the practical action of
+which has been ascertained by us, so that we can foretell the course of
+events under them, as we can that of the planets or the tides under the
+influence of gravitation.
+
+But is it scientific, or even intelligible, to use words thus, and to
+assign any such significance to such terms as "Law of Evolution," "Law
+of Substance," or any other "Law of Nature"? We are repeatedly warned to
+the contrary by so high an authority as Professor Huxley. Once, for
+instance, he discovered in a sermon of Canon Liddon's this "fallacious
+employment of the name of a scientific conception," for which it was
+however added, the preacher "could find only too many scientific
+precedents."[25] This fallacious use of terms, which nowise differs from
+that under consideration, Professor Huxley thus denounces:
+
+     It is the use of the word "law" as if it denoted a thing--as if a
+     "law of nature," as science understands it, were a being endowed
+     with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by
+     that law are brought about.... All I wish to remark is that such a
+     conception of the nature of "laws" has nothing to do with modern
+     science.... A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the
+     product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
+     under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind
+     than colour has. The law of gravitation is a statement of the
+     manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to
+     move, do, in fact, move towards one another.... The tenacity of the
+     wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of
+     being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which
+     we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our
+     anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting
+     psychological fact: and would be unintelligible if the tendency of
+     the human mind towards realism were less strong.
+
+A law, accordingly, "is not a cause but a fact,"[26] and we must learn
+laws from facts, not facts from laws. It is indeed evident on a
+moment's thought, that to speak of the Law of Evolution as causing
+things to be evolved, is like saying that the law of growth makes things
+grow. Till we know what happens, there is nothing of which Science can
+take account.
+
+     True scientific teaching, I cannot too often repeat [says Professor
+     Tait][27] requires that the facts, and their _necessary_
+     consequences alone, should be stated, as simply as possible.
+
+In like manner Professor Huxley,[28] undertaking to vindicate full
+scientific value for his own favourite Biology, does so by pointing out
+that biological methods are similar to those of every other branch of
+Science, since they begin with the observation of facts, and from this
+proceed to various applications of the knowledge so acquired. And
+Professor Haeckel himself tells us regarding his own mode of
+procedure:[29]
+
+     The means and methods we have chosen for attaining the solution of
+     the great enigma do not differ, on the whole, from those of all
+     purely scientific investigation: firstly, experience; secondly,
+     inference.
+
+Therefore, although the phrases we have already heard from him, are
+found when scrutinized to be only phrases, which explain nothing, it
+may be supposed that he elsewhere produces such proofs of his doctrine
+as will place it on a scientific basis. For these we will now seek.
+
+
+
+
+VI
+
+"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE"
+
+
+We have just been told by Professor Haeckel, that the means and methods
+which he has chosen for the establishment of his philosophy are, on the
+whole, identical with those employed in all purely scientific
+investigation, namely, first experience, and secondly inference.
+
+But here a grave difficulty at once presents itself. How, either by
+experience or by inference, can we learn anything about the
+commencements of the universe, as to which we have heard so much? How
+the first bodies, whether organic or inorganic, actually arose, neither
+philosophy nor science can definitely say, for the latter was not there
+to see, and the former has no facts on which to argue.[30] But if
+neither by observation, nor by clear inference, can the account that has
+been given be substantiated, that account cannot pretend to be
+scientific, for it rests not upon knowledge but upon speculation,--and
+as Professor Tait warns us,[31] "That of which there is no knowledge is
+not yet part of Science."
+
+This plain consideration seems to account for a fact which is
+undoubtedly highly significant. Professor Huxley had certainly no
+prejudices against evolutionary systems, could they but be
+satisfactorily established. He knew all that Professor Haeckel has urged
+on behalf of his own theory, and showed how much he was in sympathy with
+it by naming after his friend the ill-starred _Bathybius Haeckelii_, the
+deep-sea slime which was at first supposed to bridge the gulf between
+the organic and the inorganic worlds, and to be living stuff in process
+of spontaneous manufacture. Nothing, in fact, as he himself admitted, in
+his controversy with Dr. Bastian, could have suited him better than a
+demonstration that Nature possesses all the powers necessary for her own
+processes, and that the explanation of all is within the scope of
+Science. But, at the same time, he reverenced scientific truth beyond
+anything else, and he was keenly sensible of the danger attending the
+use of hypothetical explanations, leading to conclusions which cannot be
+experimentally tested, which danger he carefully shunned.[32]
+Accordingly, not only did he never lend his countenance to what
+Professor Haeckel represents as the inevitable conclusions of Science,
+but he even plainly intimated that those who advanced such views were
+going much farther than Science warrants. The doctrine of Evolution, he
+declared,[33] is not only attacked on false grounds by its enemies, but
+is made by some of its friends to cover so much which is disputable, as
+to force him in self-defence to make his own position clear in its
+regard. And the first point of his explanation is to repudiate the idea
+that we have any such knowledge as Professor Haeckel assumes. "I have
+nothing to say," he writes, "to any 'Philosophy of Evolution.'"
+
+Being thus necessarily destitute of support either directly from
+observation or by inference from observed facts, it would seem that only
+in one way can Professor Haeckel's system of cosmogony, or
+world-production, obtain any support from Science. If amongst the
+operations now in progress in the universe, is to be found evidence of
+an exhaustless and self-renewing energy, a mainspring capable of keeping
+the machine going everlastingly, then undoubtedly there will be an
+explanation forthcoming, which, whatever difficulties may still remain
+on other grounds, will at least furnish a complete mechanical account of
+things within the ken of Science. May we not suppose that this is what
+is claimed as being supplied by the "Law of Substance," which is
+represented as the cornerstone of the whole edifice, the supreme triumph
+of scientific discovery, and, in fine, "the universal law of
+evolution"? Let us see how far such a notion can be styled scientific.
+
+As has been shown, a "Law" is nothing but a statement that a certain
+kind of fact is found to occur in certain circumstances. Professor
+Haeckel has told us that the "Law of Substance" is a blend of two such
+statements, namely, "the Law of the persistency or indestructibility of
+matter," which signifies that in no instance within our knowledge is any
+particle of matter destroyed, and "the Law of the persistence of force,
+or conservation of energy," which signifies that the sum of force, at
+work in the world, and producing all phenomena, is similarly found to be
+unalterable.[34]
+
+It must here first be observed that the term "Conservation of Energy,"
+is more correct and intelligible than "Conservation of Force"; by
+"Energy" being understood the power of doing "work," that is to say, of
+overcoming resistance.[35]
+
+It is in this form alone that Force becomes subject to observation and
+can be measured by Science, and the Law of Conservation which
+observation reveals is thus stated: The sum of all the various energies
+in the universe is a constant quantity, which can be neither increased
+nor diminished, though it may be changed from one form to another;[36]
+such forms being motion, heat, chemical action, electricity, magnetism.
+
+But another point is of far greater importance. The mode in which
+Professor Haeckel states this fundamental Law is altogether deceptive.
+He tells his readers only half the truth, and when the other half is
+told, not only is his whole doctrine found to receive no support from
+the Laws of Energy, but it is these very Laws which appear most
+incompatible with it.
+
+For, along with the Law of the Conservation, there is another, of the
+Dissipation of Energy. It is perfectly true, as Professor Haeckel often
+repeats, that the sum of Energy existing in the universe remains ever
+the same: but it is no less certain, as he unfortunately fails to remind
+his readers, that the stock of Energy _available for the work of the
+universe_ is growing less every day. Though none is ever destroyed, much
+is constantly _lost_, being dissipated, or radiated into space, in the
+form of heat which can never be recaptured or translated into any form
+which can be of any practical avail. "It is lost for ever as far as we
+are concerned."[37]
+
+From what we have heard concerning the Law of Substance it might
+naturally be supposed that it certified us of the continued existence of
+the power required to carry on the operations of Nature, and that,
+accordingly, reason bids us to suppose these operations to be
+everlasting. But this neglected element of the reckoning, or _Entropy_
+as it is styled, leads scientific men to an entirely different estimate.
+Thus Professor Balfour Stewart writes:[38]
+
+     Although, therefore, in a strictly mechanical sense, there is a
+     conservation of energy, yet, as regards usefulness or fitness for
+     living beings, the energy of the universe is in process of
+     deterioration. Universally diffused heat forms what we may call the
+     great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger year
+     by year.
+
+     We have [he continues] regarded the universe, not as a collection
+     of matter, but rather as an energetic agent--in fact, as a lamp.
+     Now it has been well pointed out by Thomson,[39] that looked at in
+     this light, the universe is a system that had a beginning and must
+     have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we
+     could view the universe as a candle not lit, then it is perhaps
+     conceivable to regard it as having been always in existence; but if
+     we regard it rather as a candle that has been lit, we become
+     absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity,
+     and that a time will come when it will cease to burn. We are led to
+     look to a beginning in which the particles of matter were in a
+     diffuse chaotic state, but endowed with the power of gravitation,
+     and we are led to look to an end in which the whole universe will
+     be one equally heated inert mass, from which everything like life
+     or motion or beauty will have utterly gone away.
+
+It is doubtless true that attempts have been made to show that this
+conclusion is not final, and that there may be resources whereby Nature
+is able to recoup herself, and to draw upon some bank unknown to us for
+her missing store. As we have seen, Professor Haeckel simply takes for
+granted that some such means of recuperation exist and operate, and he
+is not wholly without countenance from others. Thus, no less an
+authority than Sir William Crookes addressing the Chemical Society as
+its president, thus expressed himself:[40]
+
+     If we may hazard any conjectures ... we may I think premise that
+     the heat radiations propagated outwards, ... by some process of
+     nature unknown to us, are transformed at the confines of the
+     universe into the primary--the essential--motion of chemical atoms,
+     which the instant they are formed, gravitate inwards, and thus
+     restore to the universe the energy which would be lost to it
+     through radiant heat. Hence Sir William Thomson's startling
+     prediction falls to the ground.
+
+But it need not be pointed out that if an advocate so eminent as Sir
+William Crookes is reduced to pleas like this on its behalf, the case
+for Renovation of Energy must be singularly destitute of anything
+resembling scientific support. Suppositions which are avowedly hazarded
+as conjectures, and which must appeal to processes of Nature of which we
+know nothing, whatever authorship they may boast, have nothing to do
+with Science, and possess no sort of value for our purpose.[41] It must
+of course be allowed that we may still be utterly in the dark as to the
+whole of this question, and that further discoveries may one day
+completely upset all our present notions. But we are concerned with the
+evidence which Science has now before her, and with the assertion so
+confidently advanced that this makes the Law of ceaseless Evolution an
+indisputable truth. We find, on the contrary, that this Law runs
+directly counter to the facts as they are at present known to us, and to
+the conclusions drawn from them by the most authoritative
+representatives of science.
+
+Nor is it only our own globe and solar system that appear to be thus
+bound towards an inevitable doom. The eternal rhythm of life and death,
+of which we have been told as pervading the endless depths of space,
+has no better title to scientific sanction. Like the minor province
+which we inhabit, the whole universe, we are assured,--so far as we have
+means of calculating,--must ultimately arrive at a condition of eternal
+stagnation,--its component parts being drawn close together by their
+mutual attractions,--so that motion ceases; while the heat replacing it
+being equally diffused, becomes as incapable of doing work as water
+between two pools on the same level is of turning a mill. As the writer
+lately quoted sums up the matter:[42]
+
+     Slow as the process of condensation is, it is not endless. In time
+     all the meteoric dust will be collected into stars or planets; and
+     in time the law of dissipation of energy will bring all these
+     bodies to a uniform temperature. So at last the movements due to
+     the original unequal distribution of matter will cease, and the
+     life of the universe will come to an end. We know of no process of
+     rejuvenescence, by means of which dissipation of energy and the
+     force of gravitation might be counteracted. Several attempts have
+     been made to refute the theory of the dissipation of energy, but
+     all have failed.
+
+This, however, is but the first of many difficulties which must be
+disposed of ere the account of the world's genesis which we are
+considering can pretend to our acceptance on the ground that reason and
+science proclaim its truth.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS"
+
+
+The doctrine that the universe is an automatic machine,--self-originated
+and self-sustained--undoubtedly rests upon a principle formally
+recognized by some evolutionists, as the "Law of Continuity," and taken
+for granted by many who do not put it into words. This principle
+is,--that everything must always have happened according to the same
+laws of Nature which operate now; that there can never have been a
+"miracle," understanding by this term whatever is beyond the scope of
+natural forces; and that, accordingly, the whole of the world's
+history,--one stage as much as another,--falls within the province of
+Science. By no one has this position been more clearly stated than by
+the late Professor Romanes.
+
+     All minds [he tells us][43] with any instincts of science in their
+     composition have grown to distrust, on merely antecedent grounds,
+     any explanation which embodies a miraculous element. Such minds
+     have grown to regard all these explanations as mere expressions of
+     our own ignorance of natural causation; or, in other words, they
+     have come to regard it as an _a priori_ truth that nature is always
+     uniform in respect of method or causation; that the reign of law is
+     universal; the principle of continuity ubiquitous.
+
+He goes on to declare that "The fact of evolution--or, which is the same
+thing, the fact of continuity in natural causation--has now been
+undoubtedly proved in many departments of nature," and that, in
+particular, "throughout the range of inorganic nature" it is "a
+demonstrated fact."
+
+If this be so, it must necessarily follow that the Laws of Nature, as
+Science finds them operating, sufficiently explain not only all that
+happens in our present world, but also all that must have happened while
+this world was being produced. According to what has already been said,
+by "The Law of Continuity" no more can be signified than that Continuity
+is a fact, that the world has actually come to be what it is through the
+continual operation of just the same natural forces as we find at work
+to-day. That things _did_ so happen we have not and cannot have, direct
+evidence; for no witness was there to report. We can but draw inferences
+from the present to the past, and argue that what Nature does to-day,
+she must have been capable of doing yesterday and the day before. Only
+thus can continuity of natural laws possibly be established. It would
+obviously be vain to argue that we must suppose no other forces ever to
+have acted than those we can observe, because, for all we know, other
+conditions may so have altered as to make their results altogether
+different from any of which we have experience.
+
+It is likewise manifest that if we are to speak of demonstrated facts,
+and of conclusions placed beyond rational possibility of doubt, proofs
+must be forthcoming sufficient to compel scientific assent.
+
+And here lies the difficulty. Very much must unquestionably have
+happened in the course of the world's making for which the Laws of
+Nature as we find them now acting cannot account, and which, therefore,
+Science cannot attempt to explain. So we are assured by eminent
+scientific men,--men, too, who desire nothing more than to find an
+explanation, but are driven, in search of one, as we have already seen
+Sir W. Crookes, to plead the limitation of our knowledge, and that there
+may be capabilities in Nature of which we are ignorant. But it remains
+always true, that what we do not know is not yet part of Science, and
+that if our scientific information, so far as it goes, is adverse to the
+Law of Continuity, it is quite unscientific to bring arguments for the
+law not from our knowledge, but from our lack of it. Still more
+unscientific is it to proclaim that Science has pronounced judgment in a
+sense contrary to that of all the evidence hitherto presented to her.
+
+Amongst the men of Science who testify as above, we may begin with Herr
+Du Bois-Reymond, an avowed Evolutionist and Materialist, whom Professor
+Haeckel styles, "the all-powerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin
+Academy of Sciences."[44] He can be suspected of no prejudices which
+would prevent him from accepting Professor Haeckel's cosmogony, if only
+he found the evidence satisfactory. Far from this, however, he
+declares,[45] that the history of the universe confronts us with no less
+than seven problems, for which Science has no solution to offer, and
+some of which he holds to be for ever insoluble. These he styles
+"Enigmas," and they are:
+
+(1) The nature of Matter and of Force.
+
+(2) The origin of Motion.
+
+(3) The origin of Life.
+
+(4) The apparently designed order of Nature.
+
+(5) The origin of sensation and consciousness.
+
+(6) The origin of rational thought and speech.
+
+(7) Free-will.
+
+The first, second, and fifth of these are in the opinion of Du
+Bois-Reymond "transcendental," or beyond possibility of solution. The
+others, in his judgment, have certainly not yet been solved, but
+_perhaps_ may be solved some day. As to the last, he much doubts whether
+it should not also be classed as "transcendental."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It thus appears that in the judgment of a competent witness, and one
+no-wise biassed by preconception or prejudice, so far from it being
+true that Professor Haeckel's story of the universe is imperiously
+imposed on us by the results of Science, not one but several great gulfs
+in the course of that history must have been bridged over somehow, which
+Science confesses she cannot bridge, so far as her present knowledge
+goes, that is to say, so far as she is Science at all.
+
+Professor Haeckel, it is true, loudly pronounces Du Bois-Reymond's
+declaration to be mere "dogmatism"[46] of a "shallow and illogical
+character," and he undertakes to show that with the help of his own
+philosophy the enigmas cease to be enigmatical.
+
+     In my opinion [he writes] the three transcendental problems (1, 2
+     and 5) are settled by our conception of substance; the three which
+     he [Du Bois-Reymond] considers difficult, though soluble[47] (3, 4
+     and 6) are decisively answered by our modern theory of evolution;
+     the seventh and last, the freedom of the will, is not an object for
+     critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+     on an illusion, and has no real existence.
+
+How far such a mode of rebuking dogmatism appears convincing, must of
+course depend on what the reader understands by an argument. Some points
+already considered may help us to a right estimate of proofs which are
+based upon "Our conception of substance," or "Our modern theory of
+evolution," and we shall presently inspect more closely the nature of
+the difficulties which we are invited so summarily to dismiss.
+Meanwhile, even though not final or conclusive, the testimony of such a
+man as Du Bois-Reymond serves at least to prove that it is possible to
+be thoroughly familiar with Science and her teaching, and yet to believe
+that as yet she knows nothing at all concerning questions which, as we
+have been assured, she has conclusively answered. And, as we shall
+presently see, if Professor Haeckel's account of things be the true one,
+there are many more scientific men of the first rank who are equally in
+the dark.
+
+In a word, while according to Professor Haeckel there is in the universe
+but one Riddle, which he tells us he has solved,--in the opinion of
+another who is certainly no less entitled to speak in the name of
+Science, there yet remain seven to which no answer has yet been given,
+and to three, at least, of which none will ever be found.
+
+
+
+
+VIII
+
+MATTER AND MOTION
+
+
+In the forefront of the problems which have been pronounced to be not
+only unsolved but insoluble, are the nature and origin of the ultimate
+factors arrived at by Science in her study of the constitution of the
+universe,--Matter, Force, and Motion.
+
+With the first and last of these alone need we at present concern
+ourselves, for "Force," as Science knows it, is always associated with
+Matter, and signifies no more in her terminology than that which
+produces, or tends to produce Motion. On the other hand, we are
+told,[48] that "The contents of the material universe may be expressed
+in terms of Matter and Motion."
+
+By "Matter" is understood "Sensible Substance," the stuff composing all
+of which our senses tell us, and which forms the object of Scientific
+investigation. What do we know concerning this raw material whereof
+worlds are made?
+
+As we have seen, Professor Haeckel and his school are ready to tell us.
+Matter, we are assured,[49] is self-existent and imperishable, "it has
+no beginning and no end; it is eternity." Together with Ether, it
+occupies infinite and boundless space. It is in ceaseless motion; and
+its interminable modifications produce everything that ever was or ever
+will be. Movement[50] is one of the "innate and original properties" of
+Matter. So are Sensation and Will,[51] but these, we are warned,[52] are
+"unconscious."
+
+Obviously, however, it is not enough that these things should be said,
+they require likewise to be proved; and the question must immediately
+suggest itself, Whence is proof to come? Not, by any possibility, from
+observation and experiment. For who can speak, of his own knowledge, to
+eternity or infinity? The only conceivable supposition is that Science
+has so thoroughly mastered the nature and properties of Matter here and
+now, as to be furnished with evidence unmistakably pointing to the above
+conclusions. Thus alone can she be quoted on their behalf; and it must
+always be remembered that the philosophy which we are examining is
+nothing if not scientific.
+
+But, in the first place, is it quite clear of what our philosophers are
+speaking? They use the term "Matter" as though it represented some one
+definite thing: but this is very far from being the case.
+
+     We must remember [says Lord Grimthorpe][53] that matter is not an
+     unit, as a creator is, and that talking of it so is merely a
+     rhetorical artifice when used in philosophical inquiries.... Matter
+     is nothing but the sum of all the ultimate particles or atoms
+     contained in the universe, or in any particular mass that we are
+     dealing with.... A very large proportion of the atoms of the
+     universe have never been within millions and billions of miles of
+     each other.
+
+Therefore, he goes on to urge, the doctrine of the self-existence of
+Matter, must mean that each several atom is self-existent, or "every
+atom its own god." How comes it then that they all obey the same "Laws"?
+How have their various provinces been allotted? Above all, how are they
+not all the same, but--so far as we know--divided into classes widely
+different from one another? For, according to our present
+knowledge,--and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves that upon this
+alone can any sound conclusion be based,--there are, in round numbers,
+some seventy different species of atoms, whose diverse qualities are
+absolutely necessary for the production of the world. Had all atoms been
+of one kind, we could have had none even of what used to be called the
+Four Elements,--neither Earth, Air, Fire, nor Water.
+
+But,--apart from this,--What is known concerning this same "Matter"? Has
+Science so thoroughly fathomed its constitution as to be able to
+declare that it possesses all the properties we have heard assigned to
+it,--Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may
+be,--locomotive power,--eternity,--and, in its collective capacity,
+immensity?
+
+So far from this being the case, scientific men who were most willing,
+and even anxious, to assign to Matter a foremost, if not _the_ foremost,
+place in Nature, have done so precisely upon the ground, not of our
+knowledge, but of our ignorance. No better examples need be sought than
+Professor Huxley, and Professor Tyndall, who alike agreed, in the words
+of the latter,[54] "to discern in Matter the promise and potency of
+every form and quality of life." But Huxley took his stand on the
+declaration, that we know so little about Matter as to make it
+impossible to say of what it may not be capable, for we cannot so much
+as be certain of its existence, and use the term only "for the unknown
+and hypothetical causes of our own states of consciousness,"[55] while
+Tyndall described the process, whereby the promise and potency are
+realized, as "the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to the
+intellect of man."
+
+Speculations thus founded upon the absence of evidence, whatever else
+they may be, are certainly no part of Science; and when we turn to what,
+being established by scientific methods, is a possible basis of
+scientific argument, we find that in every instance it contradicts
+instead of supporting the assertions we have heard.
+
+To begin with the question of Motion, as being both of supreme
+importance, and one more open than some others to observation and
+experiment. According to Professor Haeckel's teaching, "movement is an
+innate and original property of substance," that is to say of Matter,
+and in consequence, "Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted
+movement and transformation." It is by thus attributing to matter an
+inherent determination to move that he meets Du Bois-Reymond's
+difficulty as to the origin of motion.
+
+But this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's Laws, which
+are universally recognized as the most firmly established and
+unquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us that a
+body at rest will continue at rest for ever, unless compelled by some
+force to move; just as a body in motion will continue to move at the
+same rate and in the same direction, unless compelled by force to arrest
+or alter its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole
+of our Natural Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for
+the idea that Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is
+thus quite unscientific. Not self-movement but _Inertia_ is the property
+which Science ascribes to Matter.[56] It may further be observed that
+the idea of inherent motion is absurd and unintelligible; for movement
+cannot be in more than one direction at a time: so that a mass, or an
+atom, of Matter could tend to move only by having an intrinsic impulse
+in a straight line towards some one particular point. If it should tend
+to move indifferently, in all directions at once, it would remain
+motionless, each such tendency being neutralized by its opposite.
+
+As to the further claim made on behalf of Matter to be endowed with
+Sensation and Will, of any description, it must be enough to say that no
+one has ever pretended to find any evidence whatever to this effect, or
+to detect the faintest trace of such properties;--and that on the
+contrary, all experience shows inorganic Matter, (that is, Matter not
+incorporated in living animals or plants,) to be utterly lifeless and
+inert. It is a mere abuse and perversion of terms to speak of Science as
+countenancing any conclusion but that to which such experience points.
+The attempt to invest Matter with these attributes Professor Tait
+stigmatizes as "non-science," or "pseudo-science."[57]
+
+     The Pygmalions of modern days [he writes] do not require to beseech
+     Aphrodite to animate the ivory for them. Like the savage with his
+     _Totem_, they have themselves already attributed life to it.... The
+     latest phase of this peculiar non-science tells us that all Matter
+     is _alive_; or at least that it contains "the promise and potency"
+     (whatever these may be) "of all terrestrial life." ... So much for
+     the attempts to introduce into Science an element altogether
+     incompatible with the fundamental conditions of its existence.
+
+In fine, to make us realize not merely how extremely narrow are the
+bounds of our knowledge, but even how much narrower they may be than we
+suppose, there enters upon the scene Radium, like the golden apple that
+came to disturb the harmony of the celestials. What lessons this
+turbulent and unconventional element will ultimately be found to teach,
+and how far it will revolutionize the laws of Nature as hitherto
+accepted, remains, of course, to be seen: but this at least is clear. In
+presence of it, scientific men find that they are sure of nothing they
+thought most certain, not of the indestructibility of matter itself, on
+which is based that Law of Substance which we have seen made responsible
+for so much.
+
+It had been thought that whatever else might change or perish the atoms
+of which we have heard, as the ultimate constituents of Matter, were
+beyond the reach of any vicissitude. "No man," said Dalton, their
+discoverer, "can split an atom." Thus too Mr. Clodd, while acknowledging
+that the constitution even of atoms may some day be found to be liable
+to disorder and decay, clearly teaches that, as a practical certainty,
+we have in them got to something final. Taking one particular kind, an
+oxygen atom, as a text, he thus discourses:[58]
+
+     It matters not into how many myriad substances--animal, plant, or
+     mineral--an atom of oxygen may have entered, nor what isolation it
+     has undergone: bond or free, it retains its own qualities. It
+     matters not how many millions of years have elapsed during these
+     changes, age cannot wither or weaken it; amidst all the fierce play
+     of the mighty agencies to which it has been subjected it remains
+     unbroken and unworn; to it we may apply the ancient words, "the
+     things which are not seen are eternal."
+
+But now, with the recognition of radio-activity, and the disintegration
+of atoms into their constituent "electrons" which this is held to
+evidence, we have changed all that. Such disintegration, it is affirmed,
+must imply dissolution and death, alike of the atoms themselves and of
+the universe which they compose. As Sir William Crookes told the
+physicists assembled at Berlin, June, 1903:
+
+     This fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal,
+     and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk; it works
+     in the sunshine and raindrops, in lightnings and flame; it prevails
+     in the waterfall and the stormy sea.
+
+Matter he consequently regards as doomed to destruction.[59] Sooner or
+later, it will have dissolved into the "formless mist" of "prothyle"[60]
+and "the hour-hand of eternity will have completed one revolution."
+
+Consequently, we are told,[61]
+
+     The "dissipation of energy" has found its correlative in the
+     "dissolution of matter." We are confronted with an appalling sense
+     of desolation--of quasi-annihilation.
+
+It is no doubt true, here again, that such judgments cannot be called
+final, and that not all scientific men will accept them as they stand.
+But all alike are forced to agree that our previous notions are
+completely upset, and that we are compelled to recognize the fact that
+of these fundamental questions we know far less than the little we
+seemed to know. What, then, is to be thought of Professor Haeckel's
+confident utterances, which could be justified only on the supposition
+that we know everything? And what becomes of the famous Law of
+Substance, if both its parts are found thus to contradict the conclusion
+he would draw from it?
+
+The case is thus summed up by the writer of the article just cited:
+
+     The discovery of radio-activity is one of the most momentous in the
+     history of science. "There has been a vivid new start" (we again
+     borrow Sir William Crookes' expression). "Our physicists have
+     remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter." The
+     remodelling indeed has hardly commenced.... What is undeniable is
+     that the Daltonian atom has, within a century of its acceptance as
+     a fundamental reality, suffered disruption. Its proper place in
+     nature is not that formerly assigned to it, ... its reputation for
+     inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever. Each of these
+     supposed "ultimates" is now known to be the scene of indescribable
+     activities, a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of
+     parts, a star-cluster in miniature, subject to all kinds of
+     dynamical vicissitudes, to perturbation, acceleration, internal
+     friction, total or partial disruption. And to each is appointed a
+     fixed term of existence. Sooner or later, the balance of
+     equilibrium is tilted, disturbance eventuates in overthrow; the
+     tiny exquisite system finally breaks up. Of atoms, as of men, it
+     may be said with truth, "_Quisque suos patitur manes_."
+
+"Here," in fact, "we meet the impenetrable secret of creative
+agency."[62]
+
+
+
+
+IX
+
+THE PROBLEM OF LIFE
+
+
+The question concerning the origin and nature of Life is of supreme and
+vital importance not only for those who speak of Evolution as a force or
+principle by which everything is guided and governed, but also for such
+as understand by the term no more than a process which they say has
+actually occurred. Evolutionists of this second class disclaim, with
+Huxley, any "philosophy of Evolution." They are content to take the
+world as a going concern, at the farthest point in the past to which,
+even speculatively, Science can trace it, as that vast primordial nebula
+of which we have heard.[63] Given this,--assuming the existence of such
+a nebula, constituted as they suppose,--they believe that the whole
+subsequent history of the world is fully explained by the uniform action
+of the same laws of matter which we find in operation to-day. Not only
+is the establishment of our Solar System, of sun and planets, to be
+thus accounted for, but likewise the production of life, of the organic
+world of plants and animals.
+
+Hence it necessarily follows that life must originally have been evolved
+naturally from lifeless matter, for all are agreed that not only in the
+nebula, but on the earth when it first started its independent career,
+life did not, and could not, exist.
+
+     There has been [says Virchow][64] a beginning of life, since
+     geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life
+     was impossible, and when no vestige of it is to be found.
+
+     If the evolution hypothesis is true, [says Huxley][65] living
+     matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the
+     hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that
+     living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely
+     incompatible with the gaseous state.
+
+     There was a time [says Tyndall][66] when the earth was a red-hot
+     molten globe, on which no life could exist.
+
+Accordingly, as Professor Huxley acknowledges, spontaneous generation is
+an evolutionary necessity. Unless such generation can be shown to have
+taken place, or at the very least unless it can be shown to be naturally
+possible, the theory which requires it cannot be an established truth.
+But it is precisely as a scientifically established truth that the
+doctrine of Evolution is presented to us, so firmly established indeed
+that we are warned "to doubt it is to doubt science."[67] It presents
+itself, moreover, as the most precious result of modern research, the
+appearance of which is as a sunrise illuminating the field of
+knowledge.[68]
+
+This being so, and it being the first principle of Science that we
+should take nothing on faith and accept only what can be proved, it is
+our plain duty to satisfy ourselves, as scientific methods alone can
+rightly satisfy us, that a doctrine of such paramount importance is
+entitled to demand our acceptance.
+
+What methods can claim to be scientific, all are agreed. Advances in
+science, Professor Tait warns us,[69]
+
+     come or not, as we remember or forget that our Science is to be
+     based entirely upon experiment, or mathematical deduction from
+     experiment.
+
+     Men of science [says Tyndall] prolong the method of nature from the
+     present into the past. The observed uniformity of nature is their
+     only guide.[70]
+
+     The man of science [says Huxley] has learned to believe in
+     justification, not by faith, but by verification.[71]
+
+In this manner must we test the Evolution theory, and spontaneous
+generation as an essential element thereof. We will begin with
+Professor Huxley's statement of what he styles "the fundamental
+proposition of Evolution."[72]
+
+     That proposition is [he writes] that the whole world, living and
+     not-living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to
+     definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which
+     the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be
+     true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay,
+     potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient
+     intelligence could, from a knowledge of that vapour, have
+     predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869[73] with
+     as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the breath in
+     a cold winter's day.
+
+That is to say, the supposed nebula was a vast piece of mechanism, of
+unimaginable complexity, the component parts of which under the
+influence of such forces as gravitation, heat, chemical affinity,
+electricity and magnetism, have produced everything that has since
+appeared on earth, vegetable and animal life amongst the rest. How are
+we to assure ourselves that such was really the case?
+
+Professor Tyndall has told us that the only scientific method is to
+prolong the method of nature from the present into the past, taking her
+observed uniformity for our only guide, and in like manner we have heard
+it laid down by Professor Romanes, that we must assume as a first
+principle that the laws of nature are always and everywhere the same,
+and that by their uniform operation everything is done. It is therefore
+quite clear that as no man was present when life first made its
+appearance, to observe and record whence it came, the only way in which
+we can possibly proceed, without violating every scientific canon, is to
+argue from what happens now, to what must have happened then,--to show
+that inorganic matter can in fact generate organic life, and to conclude
+that the same laws must have worked the same results in the past as they
+do in the present.
+
+But this is precisely what cannot be done, for one of the most
+conclusive results of modern research has been to show that in the
+present world spontaneous generation never occurs, that living things
+come only from living parents, and that from organic matter alone can
+the smallest particle of organic matter be derived. _Omne vivum e vivo,
+omnis cellula e cellula, omnis nucleus e nucleo._ Upon this point there
+is now complete agreement amongst scientific authorities, and what is
+most remarkable, none are more strenuous in upholding the doctrine of
+_Biogenesis_,[74] than some of those who with equal vehemence proclaim
+the doctrine of Evolution for which the occurrence of spontaneous
+generation is a necessity.
+
+Never, for example, were there Evolutionists more pronounced than
+Professors Huxley and Tyndall, and they both saw clearly that without
+spontaneous generation there could not have been evolution such as they
+maintained. Yet when the occurrence of spontaneous generation, here and
+now, was asserted by Bastian and Burdon Sanderson, they, following in
+the wake of Pasteur, repudiated the notion, and Tyndall in particular
+conclusively disproved the experiments by which it was supported.[75] As
+Huxley wrote to Charles Kingsley:[76]
+
+     I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of spontogenesis.
+     Against the doctrine of spontaneous generation in the abstract I
+     have nothing to say. Indeed it is a necessary corollary from
+     Darwin's views if legitimately carried out.
+
+A few years later, writing to Dr. Dohrn[77] upon the same subject, he
+made use of a phrase--which in his mouth expressed the uttermost limit
+of disbelief: "Transubstantiation will be nothing to this if it turns
+out true."
+
+In the same year as President of the British Association he chose for
+the subject of his inaugural address, "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis," and,
+after a careful examination of the case for each, pronounced the former
+"to be victorious all along the line."
+
+In spite of all this, however, he assured himself as an Evolutionist
+that spontaneous generation must once have been not only a possibility
+but a fact. In the same Presidential address, after piling up evidence
+against it--he thus continued:[78]
+
+     But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I
+     must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend
+     to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place
+     in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic
+     chemistry, molecular physics and physiology yet in their infancy,
+     and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the
+     height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under
+     which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some
+     day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in
+     affirming is that I see no reason for affirming that the feat has
+     been performed yet.
+
+     And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find
+     no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of
+     any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of
+     its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a
+     serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in
+     the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the
+     mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be
+     using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where
+     belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of
+     geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the
+     earth was passing through physical and dynamical conditions, which
+     it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I
+     should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm
+     from not living matter.... That is the expectation to which
+     analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect
+     that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of
+     philosophical faith.
+
+Here we have the whole state of the case put for us in a nutshell. On
+the one hand, all known facts are against the idea of spontaneous
+generation, and therefore, so far as she can at present go, the verdict
+of Science must condemn that supposition. But, on the other hand, the
+fundamental principle of Evolution cannot be justified unless
+spontaneous generation has taken place, and accordingly, although
+Evolution is the very thing which we should be engaged in establishing
+by the evidence of facts, it is held to be reasonable and scientific to
+infer that facts which we cannot verify must exist because they are
+wanted. It is admitted that the requisite evidence is lacking, and
+therefore we must not go so far as to express belief in the facts: but
+we may indulge in expectations,--which seem, however, to imply belief in
+the thing expected,--and meanwhile we may go on believing firmly in the
+Evolution theory itself, which includes belief in the missing facts.
+This, we are told, is "philosophical faith." But, to say nothing of what
+we have heard from others, Professor Huxley elsewhere[79] warns us
+against faith as the one unpardonable sin: and as we have heard him
+declare the man of science has learned to believe in justification, not
+by faith, but by verification.
+
+And as to the expectation which he avowed, there appears to be no slight
+force in the response of his adversary Dr. Bastian:[80]
+
+     What reason [he asks] does Professor Huxley give in explanation of
+     his supposition?... The only reason distinctly implied is because
+     the physical and chemical conditions of the earth's surface were
+     different in the past from what they are now. And yet, concerning
+     the exact nature of their differences, or the degree in which the
+     different sets of conditions would respectively favour the
+     occurrence or arrest of an evolution of living matter, Professor
+     Huxley cannot possess even the vaguest knowledge. He chooses to
+     assume that the unknown conditions existing in the past were more
+     favourable to _Archebiosis_ (life-evolution) than those now in
+     operation. This, however, is an assumption which may be entirely
+     opposed to the facts.
+
+It is thus hard to understand how Professor Huxley could profess to
+justify his expectations by verification, for that the above account of
+the matter is no-wise overstated we have his own acknowledgment:[81]
+
+     Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter,
+     it may be said that we know absolutely nothing.... Science has no
+     means to form an opinion on the commencement of life; we can only
+     make conjectures without any scientific value.
+
+Such a witness as Huxley might well suffice, but the question is so
+important as to make it advisable to call some others, though only a few
+amongst many who testify to the same effect.
+
+Like his friend and ally Huxley, Professor Tyndall believed that
+spontaneous generation had once occurred, and denied that it occurs now.
+As to the former article of his creed he was even more pronounced in his
+materialism. We have already heard him proclaim that in matter is to be
+discerned the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. He likewise
+inclined to believe that not only life but consciousness is immanent
+everywhere, in the vegetable and mineral no less than in the animal
+world,[82] and that not merely life and consciousness, but:
+
+     All our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our
+     art--Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael--are potential in the
+     fires of the sun.[83]
+
+Beliefs such as these might be thought to imply that the genesis of life
+is a simple affair, but Tyndall was no less convinced than Huxley that,
+as things are, it cannot be obtained without antecedent life on which
+to draw. Having described the experiments devised to test the matter, he
+thus concludes:[84]
+
+     Here, as in all other cases, the evidence in favour of spontaneous
+     generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer.
+
+At the same time, he was equally certain that life must have had an
+inorganic origin and that Science bids us so to believe. His various
+utterances are not, it is true, very easily reconciled. On the one hand
+he lays it down that "Without verification a theoretic conception is a
+mere figment of the intellect." On the other hand in his Belfast Address
+he thus expressed himself:
+
+     Believing, as I do, in the continuity of nature, I cannot stop
+     abruptly where our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision
+     of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By a
+     necessity engendered and justified by Science I cross the boundary
+     of the experimental evidence.... If you ask me whether there exists
+     the least evidence to prove that any form of life can be developed
+     out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life.... [men of
+     science] will frankly admit their inability to point to any
+     satisfactory experimental proof that life can be developed, save
+     from demonstrable antecedent life.
+
+Far, however, from being a mere figment, his mental vision is
+represented as the most unalloyed product of reason. He writes:[85]
+
+     Were not man's origin implicated, we should accept without a murmur
+     the derivation of animal and vegetable life from what we call
+     inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way
+     and no other.
+
+The conclusion of pure intellect, however, having nothing to show for
+itself in the way of evidence, we are again referred to a condition of
+things concerning which we know, and can know, nothing.
+
+     Supposing [writes the Professor][86] a planet carved from the sun,
+     set spinning round an axis, and revolving round the sun at a
+     distance from him equal to that of our earth, would one of the
+     consequences of its refrigeration be the development of organic
+     forms? I lean to the affirmative.
+
+It is no doubt interesting to know to what opinion the Professor
+inclined, but is this sort of thing Science?
+
+In the same manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, the philosopher of evolution
+_par excellence_, thus reports:[87]
+
+     Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world
+     no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of
+     non-living matter. They do not deny, however, that at a remote
+     period in the past, when the temperature of the surface of the
+     earth was much higher than at present, and other physical
+     conditions were _unlike those we know_,[88] inorganic matter,
+     through successive complications, gave origin to organic
+     matter.[89]
+
+Mr. Darwin himself, who is constantly supposed to have upheld, or even
+to have demonstrated, the fact of spontaneous generation, is amongst the
+strongest witnesses against it. He was indeed disposed to believe that
+the living will some day be found to be producible from the lifeless,
+the ground of his expectation being the "Law of Continuity,"[90] or the
+assumption that from the beginning of nature to the end one only kind of
+law uniformly operates, namely the same as we now experience. But this
+is to assume the whole question at issue, for unless it can be shewn
+that there has been spontaneous generation, we cannot be assured that
+there is such a Law of Continuity. And despite his expectation Darwin
+always denied that the origin of life has been--sometimes even that it
+can be--explained. Thus he wrote on various occasions:
+
+     It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one
+     might as well think of the origin of matter.[91]
+
+     As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and
+     though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will
+     be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the
+     confines of Science.[92]
+
+     No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced
+     in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic
+     matter.[93]
+
+Here we may conveniently pause and take stock of our results. On the one
+hand, we are bidden in the name of Science to learn the past from the
+present, and the present from observation and experiment alone. On the
+other, we are invited to believe in an occurrence which observation and
+experiment negative in the present, on the ground that the circumstances
+must once have been entirely different from any with which we are
+acquainted. Obviously, the real motive of belief is that naively
+expressed by Professor Haeckel, who tells us that spontaneous generation
+is proved by the doctrine of Evolution;[94] which then in its turn is
+proved by spontaneous generation.
+
+Two points must however be noticed in which it is attempted to find
+present evidence in favour of spontaneous generation.
+
+First, there is Protoplasm--the "Physical Basis of Life," or Living
+Matter, being that form of matter by which life is always accompanied.
+In this no chemical element unknown elsewhere, is to be found; the cells
+of which it consists are compounded of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and
+Carbon; and it has been argued, especially by Huxley, that it is
+therefore not different in kind from other compounds; that as Oxygen and
+Hydrogen form water, Oxygen and Carbon, Carbonic Acid, Hydrogen and
+Nitrogen, Ammonia,--so the four combined, in proper circumstances and
+proportions, make Living Matter, without the aid of any vital force or
+principle. And Haeckel with his habitual audacity foretells the
+artificial production of Protoplasm for purposes of commerce. But, as
+Mr. Stirling observes,[95] man has always known that he is made of dust,
+and that the only part of him perceptible to sense is substantially the
+same as the earth beneath his feet. All that he now learns in addition
+is that when such matter is wedded to life it undergoes marvellous
+transformations which in part at least we are able to recognize, but are
+wholly unable to comprehend. This Professor Huxley himself admits:
+
+
+     The properties of living matter [he writes][96] distinguish it
+     absolutely from all other kinds of things, and the present state of
+     knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the
+     not-living.
+
+Not only that: the subject is full of complexities of which Professor
+Huxley gives no hint, and which it would even seem he did not himself
+perceive. In his celebrated lecture on the Physical Basis of Life[97] he
+gives his hearers to understand that all Protoplasm is the same, that
+its particles are as the bricks with which any sort of edifice may be
+constructed, a cathedral or a gin-shop, a palace or a hovel. The
+protoplasm of a mushroom, for instance, he declares to be essentially
+identical with that of him who eats it, into which it is most readily
+convertible. He also speaks of the effect of eating mutton being to
+"transubstantiate sheep into man." But, positive as are these
+statements, they are far from representing scientific truths, and we are
+told by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer that he himself would not know what
+to do with a candidate who should advance such views in an
+examination.[98] As to the mushroom and the mutton, Sir William adds,
+that except the definition of a crab, as a red fish that runs backwards,
+attributed to the French Academy, he can call to mind no statement "so
+compact of error."
+
+In reality, instead of all Protoplasm being the same, the differences
+are infinite. Particles from different sources may be indistinguishable
+by the microscope or by any test that chemistry can apply, but this only
+increases the mystery of their nature, for each has its own functions
+and will perform no others. The Protoplasm of a plant will do what that
+of an animal, seemingly identical, cannot do. That of a fish will
+convert the same nutriment into quite a different formation from that of
+a man.
+
+     It is no doubt true that a particle of fungoid differs in no
+     appreciable physical respect from one of human protoplasm, yet the
+     former will never emerge from the fate of the humble mushroom,
+     while the other may be instinct with the thoughts of a Prime
+     Minister.[99]
+
+As Mr. Stirling sums up the matter:[100]
+
+     There is nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,
+     muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues, no one
+     of which but produces only its own kind, and is uninterchangeable
+     with the rest. Lastly, we have the overwhelming fact that there is
+     the infinitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely
+     different plants and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm,
+     as in the case of the various tissues, but produces its own kind,
+     and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest.
+
+It thus appears that the character of Protoplasm, far from making it
+easier to conceive the mechanical production of living things, does but
+immensely aggravate the difficulty. As Sir William Thiselton-Dyer avows:
+"I do not see even the beginning of a materialistic theory of
+protoplasm." And Haeckel's idea that we shall succeed in creating
+organic life does not commend itself to such an authority as Sir Henry
+Roscoe:
+
+     It is true [he says][101] that there are those who profess to
+     foresee that the day will arise when the chemist, by a succession
+     of constructive efforts may pass beyond albumen, and gather the
+     elements of lifeless matter into a living structure. Whatever may
+     be said of this from other standpoints, the chemist can only say
+     that at present no such problem lies within his province.
+     Protoplasm, with which the simplest manifestations of life are
+     associated, is not a compound, but a structure built up of
+     compounds. The chemist may successfully synthesize any of its
+     component compounds, but he has no more reason to look forward to
+     the synthetic production of the structure than to imagine that the
+     synthesis of gallic acid leads to the artificial production of
+     gall-nuts.
+
+And M. de Quatrefages thus sums up the conclusions at which he arrives
+from minute study of the lowest forms of life:[102]
+
+
+     I make bold to affirm that the deeper Science penetrates into the
+     secrets of organization and phenomena, the more does she
+     demonstrate how wide and how profound is the abyss which separates
+     brute matter from living things.
+
+The other point requiring notice is crystallization. Inorganic matter,
+as we know, can build up crystals, the wonderful structure of which
+results from the molecular properties of the substance crystallized. Why
+then, some would ask, may not matter in the same manner produce
+Protoplasm?
+
+But, in the first place, this, as we have heard, is what it is never
+found to do. Crystals we can produce at pleasure, in what quantity we
+will. But all efforts have not yet succeeded in obtaining the most
+minute speck of living matter. Moreover, nothing can be more widely
+different from organic structures than crystals. The latter are always
+mathematical, the former never: the latter grow by outside accretion, of
+the one kind of particles whereof they consist: the former by absorption
+and assimilation of various foreign substances: the latter are wholly
+independent of anything like an ancestor: for the former an ancestor is
+in our experience indispensable: crystals can be dissolved and
+recrystallized: living matter once destroyed can never be reconstituted.
+Above all, the particles incorporated in the crystal are absolutely
+quiescent, so far as any portion of matter can be said to be so, no more
+able to change their position without external force than the bricks in
+a wall, while those in living tissue at once become subject to "the
+whirlwind of life," involving constant change the cessation of which is
+death.
+
+     It is inexplicable to me [says M. de Quatrefages][103] that some
+     men whose merits I otherwise acknowledge, should have compared
+     crystals to the simplest living forms.... These forms are the
+     antipodes of the crystal from every point of view.
+
+To the same effect speaks Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin's associate in
+the discovery of the Darwinian theory. In a work expressly devoted to
+the vindication of that theory, Mr. Wallace declares that far from the
+way of evolution being made clear by Science from end to end--"there are
+at least three stages in the development of the organic world where some
+new cause or power must necessarily have come into action." And at the
+head of them he places that which we are now considering, writing
+thus:[104]
+
+     The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the
+     earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it
+     arose, first appeared.... There is in this something quite beyond
+     and apart from chemical changes however complex; and it has been
+     well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the
+     world, possessing altogether new powers....[105]
+
+Such testimonies are sufficient for our present purpose. In face of them
+it cannot be pretended that Science _knows_ anything of spontaneous
+generation or gives her verdict in its favour. On the contrary, as
+Professor Tait declares:[106]
+
+     To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to speak of its
+     higher forms, still less of volition and consciousness, can be
+     fully _explained_ on physical principles alone, ... is simply
+     unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science
+     which can lend the slightest support to such an idea.... To suppose
+     that life, even in its lowest form, is wholly material, involves
+     either a denial of the truth of Newton's laws of motion, or an
+     erroneous use of the term "Matter." Both are alike unscientific.
+
+Yet it is precisely in the name of Science that we have been told to
+accept the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter, as a
+clearly demonstrated truth, and no riddle at all.
+
+But as Professor Virchow, Evolutionist and Materialist as he was, well
+said in regard of this very point in the Munich Congress of 1877:
+
+     If we would speak frankly, we must admit that naturalists may well
+     have some little sympathy for the _generatio aequivoca_
+     [spontaneous generation]. If it were capable of proof, it would
+     indeed be beautiful! But, we must acknowledge, it has not yet been
+     proved. The proofs of it are still wanting.... Whoever recalls to
+     mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts to discover a
+     decided support for the _generatio aequivoca_ in the lower forms of
+     transition from the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it
+     doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly discredited,
+     should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of
+     life.
+
+
+
+
+X
+
+ANIMAL AND MAN
+
+
+Leaving for later consideration the fourth of Du Bois-Reymond's Unsolved
+Enigmas, namely the seemingly pre-ordained order of the universe, we may
+conveniently group together the three which follow it, as much
+resembling that which has just occupied our attention. These problems,
+it will be remembered, are (_a_) the origin of simple sensation and
+consciousness, or, in other words, of the faculties possessed by
+animals; (_b_) that of rational thought and speech; (_c_)
+Free-will.--Here again we are bound to ask, in the name of right reason
+and common-sense, what light has really been thrown on such questions by
+Science, and how far she has changed their aspect,--that so we may guard
+against the delusion of imagining ourselves to be in possession of more
+knowledge than we actually possess.
+
+(_a_) _Simple sensation and consciousness._ As regards the actual origin
+of the higher form of life which distinguishes the animal from the
+vegetable, we are obviously no better informed than we have found
+ourselves to be concerning the first beginnings of life in any form,--no
+evidence as to the actual facts being available, or even possible, for
+our enlightenment. Once more we can only argue from the present to the
+past, and enquire whether the progress of science has made it more
+reasonable to suppose than it seemed in pre-scientific days that animal
+life has been spontaneously evolved, either from inanimate matter or
+from the vegetative life of plants. This enquiry so much resembles that
+which we have just concluded as to make it unnecessary to pursue it at
+any length.
+
+We find, in fact, that men of Science who have no prepossessions
+whatever against Evolution, and would willingly accept the Law of
+Continuity at all points, if only evidence were forthcoming, find here
+not only an unsolved problem, but one even more difficult than the
+Origin of Life itself. Du Bois-Reymond for example places this amongst
+his "transcendental" enigmas, to which an answer will never be found,
+whereas he thinks that the origin of vegetable life, although at present
+a mystery, may one day be explained. The expression of his
+opinion,--that by no possibility can we ever understand how
+consciousness could be evolved from matter--has, he tells us[107] been
+vehemently contradicted, but, he adds, nothing in the way of argument,
+or beyond mere assumptions, has been brought against him. Of these
+assumptions he notices only that of Professor Haeckel, "the Prophet of
+Jena," who protests against such limitations of our possibilities as
+treason to the sacred cause of Evolution. The progress we have made in
+intellect, says Haeckel, beyond our barbarous progenitors, is sufficient
+to show that we are on the high road of development towards a stage as
+far in advance of the present, as this is of the past; and when that is
+attained, our knowledge will be full and will embrace all this. But,
+asks Du Bois-Reymond in reply, is this mighty progress of ours so very
+evident within the period concerning which we have any information? Has
+the mental capacity of our race notably improved since Homer?[108] or
+its faculty of thinking since Plato and Aristotle? At our present rate
+of progress, long before the high-water mark prophesied by Haeckel is
+reached, the earth will have become uninhabitable. And, were it
+otherwise, the highest point of intellect to which conceivably man could
+attain, would be that of the "sufficient intelligence" whereof we have
+been told, which, from an inspection of the cosmic nebula could foretell
+all that was to issue from it. And, adds Du Bois-Reymond, even could we
+do this, we should still be unable to understand the origin of
+consciousness, which would require intelligence of another order than
+ours, however magnified.
+
+So again Mr. Wallace tells us,[109] after speaking of the beginning of
+life as we have already heard,
+
+     The next stage is still more marvellous, still more completely
+     beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and
+     forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness,
+     constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
+     vegetable kingdoms. Here all idea of mere complication of structure
+     producing the result is out of the question. We feel it to be
+     altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of
+     complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
+     that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence, a
+     thing that _feels_, that is conscious of its own existence. Here we
+     have the certainty that something new has arisen, a being whose
+     nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and
+     definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals. No
+     verbal explanation or attempt at explanation--such as the statement
+     that life is the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm,
+     or that the whole existing organic universe from the amoeba up to
+     man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was
+     developed--can afford any mental satisfaction, or help us in any
+     way to a solution of the mystery.
+
+Unquestionably, there is no lack of speakers and writers who flatly
+contradict such views, and assert that animal life, equally with
+vegetable, could be, and must have been, naturally evolved from
+inorganic nature. The above testimonies, however, amply suffice for our
+present purpose, and with them we may be satisfied; for at least they
+make it plain that Science has found no evidence as to the origin of
+sensation and consciousness conclusive enough to compel belief. And
+where there is no scientific evidence even alleged, such as might
+require the training of a specialist for its due appreciation, one man
+of ordinary intelligence is as competent a judge as another, and
+scientific experts are on a level with the rest of us.
+
+(_b_) _Rational thought and speech._ What has just been said applies
+with equal force to this matter likewise. Unless Science have some
+positive evidence to bring, demonstrating how the gulf can be bridged
+which separates the intelligence of the most degraded races of men from
+the highest of the brutes, and how articulate language can spontaneously
+have arisen, which is the necessary appanage of reason, we have all
+equally the means of forming our conclusions on the subject.
+
+That the gulf between man and the lower animals is here immense we have
+the evidence of Mr. Darwin.
+
+     No doubt [he writes][110] the difference is in this respect
+     enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages,
+     who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who
+     uses no abstract terms for the commonest objects or affections,
+     with that of the most highly organized ape. The difference would,
+     no doubt, still remain immense, even if one of the highest apes had
+     been improved and civilized as much as a dog has been in comparison
+     with its parent form, the wolf or jackal. The Fuegians rank
+     amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with
+     surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. _Beagle_,
+     who had lived some years in England and could talk a little
+     English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental
+     faculties.
+
+Mr. Darwin goes on to argue, however, that the difference between man
+and beast is one of degree only and not of kind; that this can be
+"clearly shewn"; and that there is unquestionably
+
+     a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest
+     fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
+     between an ape and a man; yet this immense interval is filled up by
+     numberless gradations,
+
+from which he concludes that by a like series of steps, of which,
+however, no trace is left, our progenitors have been able to mount from
+the simian to the human level.
+
+Clear however as Mr. Darwin pronounces the evidence to be, it is very
+far from being so considered by other eminent naturalists. So convinced
+an Evolutionist as Mr. Mivart, for example, declared on various
+occasions that his reason abundantly sufficed to convince him that there
+was a wider break in nature between man and the highest ape, than
+between the highest ape and an oyster or even a mushroom.
+
+It is evident that the evidence which permits judgments so diverse as
+these cannot be said conclusively to prove the former existence of a
+bridge every vestige of which has, by the acknowledgment of all parties,
+entirely disappeared. We are therefore left to determine for ourselves,
+whether the powers of our own mind, as each knows them in himself, are
+of a totally different nature from those of dogs and horses, and
+chimpanzees such as the late lamented "Consul," or whether we are
+superior only in degree, as a sheep-dog is more intelligent than a
+sheep, or a fox than a goose.
+
+If in any respect such an enquiry can be made definite and therefore
+profitable, it is clearly in regard of Language. This, as said above, is
+an essential adjunct of reason such as ours, and on the other hand it
+forms the plainest boundary between the domain of the human race and
+that of the brutes. It is, says Professor Max Mueller, our Rubicon on the
+hither side of which men alone are found. Given reason such as ours,
+whatever mode of communication might be open to them, we cannot suppose
+its possessors failing to establish a medium of intercourse. In existing
+conditions, man can make an alphabet out of the clicks of a needle or
+the flashes of a mirror, and if his vocal organs were no better than
+those of a baboon, we cannot imagine him content generation after
+generation with inarticulate howls and yells. But this is just the case
+of the animals. They are _never_ found to make the smallest progress in
+the direction of a code of signals. Dogs indeed, as Mr. Darwin
+says,[111] having developed in captivity the new art of barking, have
+further learnt to vary this accomplishment according to the
+circumstances that provoke it, and have distinct tones to express the
+diversity of their feelings, as when hunting, or angry, or setting out
+for a walk, or shut up in a kennel or out of a house. Some dogs, he
+might have added, refine still further, and will betray by their style
+of bark not only that they are hunting something, but what it is that
+they have come upon, whether a rabbit, a cat, or a hedgehog. But, as the
+Chevalier Bunsen observes,[112] and his observation includes such
+manifestations as the above:
+
+     Animal sounds are the echoes of blind instincts within, or of the
+     phenomena of the outward world, uttered by suffering or satisfied
+     animal nature, and in all cases resulting from mere passiveness.
+
+By rational language, on the other hand, is signified, to quote Mr.
+Mivart:[113]
+
+     The external manifestation, whether by sound or gesture, of general
+     conceptions:--not emotional expressions or the manifestations of
+     sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judgments as to
+     "the what," "the how," and "the why."
+
+Consequently, as Bunsen declares:
+
+     The theories about the origin of language have followed those
+     about the origin of thought, and have shared their fate. The
+     materialists have never been able to show the possibility of the
+     first step. They attempt to veil their inability by the easy but
+     fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to
+     explain the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions
+     of years could supply the want of the agent necessary for the first
+     movement, for the first step in the line of progress! No numbers
+     can effect a logical impossibility. How indeed could reason spring
+     out of a state which is destitute of reason? How can speech, the
+     expression of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of
+     years, out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of
+     pleasure, pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will
+     always shrink from such theories.
+
+Bunsen's words were echoed even more forcibly by professor Max Mueller,
+speaking as President of the Anthropological Section of the British
+Association at Cardiff in 1889.
+
+     What [he asked] does Bunsen consider the real barrier between man
+     and beast? It is language, which is unattainable, or at least
+     unattained, by any animal except man.
+
+     You know [he continued] how for a time, and chiefly owing to
+     Darwin's predominating influence, every conceivable effort was made
+     to reduce the distance which language places between man and beast,
+     and to treat language as a vanishing line in the mental evolution
+     of animal and man. It required some courage at times to stand up
+     against the authority of Darwin, but at present all serious
+     thinkers agree, I believe, with Bunsen, that no animal has ever
+     developed what we mean by rational language, as distinct from mere
+     utterances of pleasure or pain, a subject lately treated with great
+     fulness by Professor Romanes. Still, if all true science is based
+     on facts, the fact remains that no animal has ever found what we
+     mean by a language; and we are fully justified, therefore, in
+     holding with Bunsen and Humboldt, as against Darwin and Romanes,
+     that there _is_ a specific difference between the human animal and
+     all other animals, and that that difference consists in language as
+     the outward manifestation of what the Greeks meant by _Logos_.
+
+It is moreover evident that, far from speech having generated reason, as
+some have preposterously maintained, it is reason which generates
+speech, no less inevitably than sunlight produces the spectrum when it
+passes through a prism. The seeming paradox of Wilhelm von Humboldt is
+in fact a sober truth: "Man is man only through speech, but in order to
+invent it he must already be man." We have plain evidence that before
+means for the internal expression of it are found, the mental word
+(_verbum mentale_) is awaiting them, and that without this it would be
+as impossible for any sort of rational speech to be produced as for an
+apple to be grown without an apple-tree.
+
+Evidence to this effect is furnished by recorded instances of persons
+who from early childhood, or even from birth, were deaf, dumb, and
+blind, and appeared to be cut off from all possibility of human
+converse, the "gates of Mansoul" being thus almost entirely closed. Such
+are the well-known cases of Laura Bridgman, Miss Keller, and Martha
+Obrecht, who had been thus afflicted since their earliest childhood, the
+two first named from the age of two, and the last from that of three
+years.[114] Also the more recent instance of Marie Heurtin, who was so
+born, and consequently could not have even the faintest glimmer of any
+knowledge these senses could convey.[115] Yet, by the exercise of
+ingenious and unwearied charity, a means of communication was elaborated
+through the sense of touch, and the souls which had seemingly been
+buried alive, shewed themselves responsive to such advances,--often
+astonishingly so,--and revealed their possession of faculties identical
+with those of their rescuers. We are told, for example, of Marie Heurtin
+that her intelligence proved to be quick, that she was even "unusually
+clever, evidently eager for knowledge, and, as sometimes happens, her
+faculties being prevented by her infirmity from wasting their powers on
+external objects, were all the more fresh and vigorous." Even more
+wonderful is the case of Miss Keller, who attained a degree of culture
+and accomplishment far beyond the common level of those possessing the
+use of all their senses.
+
+Somewhat akin to such instances is that of the savages from Tierra del
+Fuego mentioned above by Mr. Darwin. In their case likewise, when they
+were brought into communication with people possessed of higher culture
+than their own degraded race, it was found that the corresponding
+faculties within them were not dead, or as yet non-existent, but only
+starved into lethargy; and, the opportunity being given, they speedily
+caused surprise by unmistakable proofs how closely they resemble
+ourselves.
+
+Thus we find that in this branch of our enquiry there is one broad fact,
+which all must recognize and none can deny. No race of men has ever been
+known which could not speak, nor any race of animals which could, or
+which had made the first beginnings of intelligent language. Facts being
+the only groundwork of Science here is undoubtedly something whereon she
+may build an inference, and this inference will certainly not be that
+the faculties of men and animals are radically identical. And if we are
+told, as we constantly are, that it is more truly scientific to admit
+such identity, should there not be some other facts, still more
+significant and equally well established, to exhibit on the other side?
+
+But of what character are the arguments actually adduced? It will be
+sufficient to quote a few which come with the highest authority.
+
+We may start with the almost classical specimen contributed by Mr.
+Darwin himself.
+
+     It does not [he says][116] appear altogether incredible that some
+     unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the
+     growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys
+     the nature of the expected danger. And this would have been a first
+     step in the formation of a language.
+
+Similarly Professor Whitney writes of some supposed "pithecoid"[117]
+men:
+
+     There is no difficulty in supposing them to have possessed forms of
+     speech, more rudimentary and imperfect than ours.[118]
+
+And so again Professor Romanes:[119]
+
+     Let us try to imagine a community considerably more intelligent
+     than the existing anthropoid apes, although still considerably
+     below the intellectual level of existing savages. It is certain
+     that in such a community natural signs of voice, gesture, and
+     grimace would be in vogue to a greater or less extent. As their
+     numbers increased ... such signs would require to become more and
+     more conventional, or acquire more and more the character of
+     sentence-words.
+
+Of course, as Mr. Mivart replies,[120] there is no difficulty in
+supposing anything we choose, or in seeing animals in imagination
+performing feats which never yet have they been known to achieve in
+fact. But no amount of such suppositions or imaginations will furnish
+Science with the scantiest apology for a foothold, nor can the germs of
+language attributed to pithecoid communities or the sagest of their
+patriarchs, be considered as of any greater value than the speeches put
+into the mouths of the animals by AEsop or "Uncle Remus."
+
+It is also to be noticed that in these accounts of the origin of
+language, the essential element of reason is always quietly smuggled in
+as a matter of course. Thus Mr. Darwin's wisest of the pithecoids was
+able to "think of" a device for the information of his fellows. There is
+not the smallest doubt that any creature which had got so far as _that_
+would find what he wanted. It is but the old case of the man who was
+sure he could have written Hamlet had he had a mind to do so. Like him,
+the ape might have made the invention, if he had a mind to make
+it;--only he had not got the mind. So too, Professor Romanes' missing
+links use tones and signs which acquire "more and more" the character of
+true speech: which could not be unless they contained some measure of
+that character already. But it is just the first step thus ignored which
+spans the gulf between man and brute.
+
+There is another factor upon which, in conjunction with these
+suppositions, great stress is wont to be laid, namely that of time; it
+being apparently taken for granted that if only time enough be given
+anything whatever may come about. Thus Professor Romanes tells us[121]
+that his imaginary _Homo alalus_, or speechless man, must probably have
+lived for an "inconceivably long time," before getting far enough on the
+road towards speech to give him such an advantage as enabled him to
+crush out his less accomplished congeners; and that even after this
+point was reached, another "inconceivable lapse of time" must have been
+required to turn him into _Homo sapiens_, or man as he actually is.
+Immense intervals, he further tells us, must have been consumed in the
+passage through various grades of mental evolution; "The epoch during
+which sentence-words prevailed was probably immense"; "It was not until
+aeons of ages had elapsed that any pronouns arose."
+
+Meanwhile, there is no scrap of evidence that as a matter of fact any
+thing of all this ever happened at all, and as Bunsen has observed no
+millions of years, even were millions available at discretion, could
+ever supply the want of the faculty without which nothing in the way of
+language could ever be accomplished.
+
+(_c_) _Free-will._--Here is another human faculty which Du Bois-Reymond
+declares never to have been accounted for by natural causation, and he
+greatly doubts whether it should not be classed among the problems that
+must be for ever insoluble.
+
+Professor Haeckel, as we have seen, gets rid of all difficulties on this
+score by laying it down that "the freedom of the will is not an object
+for critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based
+on an illusion, and has no real existence."
+
+It is plain that for his purpose this is the only course possible. If
+the will be really free, there can be no question of finding a
+mechanical explanation of it. There is therefore no alternative but to
+cut the Gordian knot, and to declare that the liberty which the vast
+majority of men believe themselves to exercise every instant, is proved
+by Science to be no better than a pure dogma, that is to say, a mere
+figment.
+
+When we seek for his indication of the line of argument whereby this
+position is made good, the information supplied is less full than might
+be desired. He begins[122] with a rather lengthy sketch of the history
+of controversy in this regard,--which contains the remarkable statement
+that "Some of the first teachers of the Christian Churches--such as St.
+Augustine and Calvin--rejected the freedom of the will as decidedly as
+the famous leaders of pure Materialism, Holbach in the eighteenth, and
+Buechner in the nineteenth century." Then he proceeds:
+
+     The great struggle between the determinist and the indeterminist,
+     between the opponent and the sustainer of the freedom of the will,
+     has ended to-day after more than 2,000 years, completely in favour
+     of the determinist. The human will has no more freedom than that of
+     the higher animals, from which it differs only in degree, not in
+     kind. In the last [i.e. the eighteenth] century the doctrine of
+     liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological
+     arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different
+     weapons for its definitive destruction--the powerful weapons which
+     we find in the arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We
+     now know that each act of the will is as fatally determined by the
+     organization of the individual, and as dependent on the momentary
+     condition of his environment, as every other psychic activity. The
+     character of the inclination was determined long ago by _heredity_
+     from parents and ancestors; the determination to each particular
+     act is an instance of _adaptation_ to the circumstances of the
+     moment wherein the strongest motive prevails, according to the laws
+     which govern the statics of emotion. Ontogeny teaches us to
+     understand the evolution of the will in the individual child.
+     Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development of the will
+     within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors.[123]
+
+That is all. It is needless to observe that jargon like this proves
+nothing. Of anything approaching to evidence there is here, manifestly,
+no vestige, and there is consequently nothing which can avail to win our
+assent as rational men.
+
+It is likewise obvious that we have here a question as to which every
+human being has the means of judging equally with the most eminent man
+of Science, and modern improvement of the methods and instruments of
+research leaves us just where we always were. The final evidence on the
+subject every man has within himself, in the most vital facts of his own
+experience. Into the philosophy of the matter it is neither necessary
+nor advisable at present to go. In dealing with profound yet elementary
+questions, regarding which our means of knowledge are thus simple and
+direct, men are apt to bewilder themselves when they begin to
+philosophize, and to persuade themselves that they cannot be sure
+precisely of those things that are most certain. George Borrow is by no
+means the only one who has tormented himself with doubts as to his own
+existence.[124] A still larger number have professed to believe
+themselves mere machines compelled to go like clocks, and to do only
+what has been predetermined for them. But such beliefs are for the
+lecture-room or the study only, and in practical life every one behaves
+as if both he himself and others--especially others--were responsible
+for their conduct. So common-sense teaches, than which we shall not find
+a safer guide. "Sir," said the eminently common-sense Dr. Johnson, "we
+_know_ our will is free; and _there's_ an end on't. All theory is
+against the freedom of the will; all experience for it.... But, Sir, as
+to the doctrine of necessity, no man believes it. If a man should give
+me arguments that I cannot answer to prove that I cannot see; because I
+cannot answer his arguments, do I believe that I have no eyes?"
+
+Thus we find once again that the doctrines which some would force upon
+us in the name of Science, on whatever they are founded, have no basis
+of fact, and cannot therefore rightly call themselves scientific.
+
+
+
+
+XI
+
+THE ORDER OF NATURE
+
+
+That the world which we inhabit is a _Cosmos_, ruled by law and order,
+no one has ever attempted to deny. Only because laws are everywhere
+found awaiting discovery, is natural science a possibility. What such
+laws really are, we have already considered. They are, as Mr. Lewes puts
+it, the paths along which the forces of nature travel to their results;
+and it is only because these forces keep invariably each to its proper
+path, that we are able to follow them with our minds, either to learn
+anything concerning them, or to turn our knowledge to practical account.
+In something of the same manner, it is because we are assured that our
+railway trains will run on their appointed lines, that we can learn from
+Bradshaw how to get to Exeter or to Edinburgh;--but the forces of Nature
+are never derailed. It is, in fact, as we have heard, the first
+principle of Science, that "the reign of law is universal, the principle
+of continuity ubiquitous,"--and upon this the validity of all her
+methods and conclusions wholly depends. It is taken for granted, with
+absolute confidence, that what is once found to happen will be exactly
+repeated in like circumstances,--that the laws experimentally observed,
+regarding motion, heat, light, sound, chemical combination, electricity,
+magnetism, and the rest, will be faithfully obeyed, in every minutest
+particular, as certainly as suns will rise and set, or moons wax and
+wane. Were it not so, were the forces of Nature to act spasmodically and
+at random, and did not their common action so result as to establish or
+subserve other laws of bewildering complexity,--as in molecular
+dynamics, the mechanism of the heavens, and the processes of organic
+life,--we could learn no more from the study of nature than from a page
+of type which had been set up by an idiot, or an anthropoid ape.
+
+Here is another factor in our problem, and one which has from the first
+attracted the attention of thinking men. No feature of nature impressed
+them more than this same reign of law and order, apparent everywhere;
+and on this account they called the world _Cosmos_, instead of _Chaos_.
+And, since it is self-evident that everything must have a reason for its
+being, that whatever is not self-existent must have a cause other than
+itself, they felt compelled to enquire what manner of cause would
+account for law and order. The like enquiry we have still to pursue, and
+by methods radically the same as ever; for amid all her discoveries
+Science has found nothing which does anything whatever to furnish an
+answer. All that has been done is enormously to multiply the aspects
+under which the problem presents itself.
+
+It is now not merely in the larger and more obvious operations of Nature
+that we can trace this marvellous ubiquity of law, but in her most
+hidden processes and inmost constitution. At every point, we are forced
+to ask why things should be as they actually are, and how they came to
+be subject to conditions which they cannot be supposed to have created
+for themselves. Why, for example, should the ultimate elements of
+matter,--be they atoms, or electrons, or whatever else,--always and
+everywhere observe the same rules of the great game in which they serve
+as counters? Why, to take a concrete instance, should atoms of Hydrogen
+in Sirius, or in a star of the Milky Way, obey just the same laws as do
+those with which we make coal-gas or spirit of salt? These various
+atoms, as Lord Grimthorpe reminds us, have never been within billions of
+miles of one another. What is the mysterious influence which links them
+together across the depths of space? That they are so linked is obvious;
+for if we can ascertain the existence of such a substance in other
+spheres, it is only because the light it emits, exactly agrees when
+analyzed in the spectroscope with that of hydrogen flames in our own
+laboratories. How comes it, again, that the seventy different kinds of
+atoms, (to speak in round numbers)--are distributed--according to
+Mendeleeff's periodic law,--among some seven groups or families, the
+members of each group resembling one another in various particulars,
+wherein they differ from the rest? Or, to pass from atoms to molecules,
+(in which atoms of the same or of different kinds combine, to build up
+simple or compound substances respectively,)--how is it that molecules
+of the same kind are always constructed upon exactly the same model,
+resembling one another far more closely than sovereigns struck from the
+same die, or different copies of this morning's _Times_? It was in this
+uniformity of type, character and behaviour, repeated always and
+everywhere, in instances multiplied "beyond the power of imagination to
+conceive," that Sir John Herschel[125] saw a feature stamping atoms and
+molecules as "manufactured articles, and subordinate agents," which, no
+less than a line of spinning-jennies, or a regiment of soldiers clad in
+the same uniform, and going through the same evolutions, imply a
+controlling force directing things according to a definite system.
+
+These and innumerable other particulars of detail has Science added to
+the problem: but of anything which can supply an answer, she knows no
+more than did the first man who ever mooted the question within his own
+soul.
+
+And if in the inorganic world we find food for such considerations, with
+immensely greater instance are they forced upon us by a study of the
+organic. Here we enter a new realm of mystery, for the laws we encounter
+actively energizing at every point, are altogether different from those
+with which hitherto we have had to deal. The matter which enters into
+the constitution of living things,--animals or plants--is precisely the
+same as that of which the inorganic world is constituted. No single atom
+or molecule is found in the one which has not been drawn from the
+other;--nor when incorporated in a living structure do atoms or
+molecules suffer any alteration, or change their nature in any respect,
+for, says Clerk-Maxwell,[126] throughout all changes and catastrophes
+these remain "unbroken and unworn." Nevertheless, they fall at once
+under the spell of a force which introduces into their operations an
+order altogether new, for it somehow strikes across all the laws of dead
+matter, setting up a new code of its own, which endures just so long as
+life lasts, and is never met with apart from life. And these organic
+laws issue in marvellous results. Professor Haeckel himself, after
+endeavouring to show that from the inorganic world no arguments can be
+drawn to favour the supposition of design in Nature, thus
+continues:[127]
+
+     But the idea of design has a very great significance and
+     application in the _organic_ world. We do undeniably perceive a
+     purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant
+     and animal seem to be controlled by a definite design in the
+     combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in
+     the machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life
+     continues, the functions of the several organs are directed to
+     definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a
+     machine.
+
+How Haeckel proceeds to argue that such appearance of purposive design
+is merely fallacious, we need not here stay to enquire; our present
+concern is to attempt to realize the evidence of law and order which the
+world everywhere exhibits. As we have just heard, the parts of an
+organism, like those of a motor-car, or a chronometer, combine their
+operations for the production of definite ends; the attainment of which
+depends in all instances upon the nicest correspondence of various
+details of their work. Thus, that there should be eyes capable of
+seeing, the laws of optics must be satisfied, reflection, refraction and
+the rest, just as exactly in the making of an eye as in that of a
+telescope. _De facto_ they _are_ satisfied. The eye, Mr. Darwin
+styles[128] "a living optical instrument as superior to one of glass as
+the works of the Creator[129] are to those of man." He speaks, moreover,
+of "all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
+distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
+correction of spherical and chromatic aberration."[130] Therefore,
+however we are to account for them, the laws which govern the
+production of eyes successfully solve a practical problem and satisfy
+laws which were in force before an animal with eyes appeared on earth.
+
+In just the same way, the requirements of sound are met by the
+structure of the ear, which Sir Henry Holland, for example,[131] judged
+more wonderful than that of the eye itself.
+
+So again as to wings. They are in the first place such marvellous pieces
+of workmanship that as Mr. Pettigrew writes concerning one of their
+forms.[132] "There are few things in nature more admirably constructed
+than the wing of a bird, and perhaps none where design can be more
+readily traced." But, moreover, wings entirely different in plan, as of
+birds, bats, and all the varieties of insects, alike satisfy the laws of
+aerostatics, and successfully solve in practice the problem of flight, a
+problem which we are unable to solve even theoretically. "It is
+evident," writes Lord Grimthorpe,[133] "that nobody yet thoroughly
+understands the whole theory of flying, though we are seeing it
+continually, and have unlimited opportunities of examining all sorts of
+wings. The explanation that appears plausible for one kind, not only
+will not do for another but seems refuted by it." Yet in a multitude of
+different ways, the forces of Nature succeed in effecting what with all
+our Science we cannot shew to be possible.
+
+And concerning not merely one portion of a creature's structure, but the
+whole, Professor Huxley declares:[134]
+
+     The horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the
+     fact that it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect
+     pieces of machinery in the living world. In truth, among the works
+     of human ingenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive
+     so perfectly adapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so
+     small a quantity of fuel, as this machine of Nature's
+     manufacture--the horse.
+
+These are but a few out of countless similar examples. "We are
+constantly discovering," says Lord Grimthorpe, "new complications and
+processes, and what to all common sense appear contrivances, in the
+organs of all living things, and indeed we can find no limit to them."
+In all these cases an instrument is fashioned precisely adapted to the
+performance of a certain function, and it is therefore obvious on first
+principles that there must exist _some_ power capable of producing such
+instruments.
+
+It will probably be answered that there are forces enough in Nature to
+account for everything, and that these furnish the needful explanation.
+But, as Mr. Croll rightly insists,[135] Force by itself explains
+nothing. Its mere exercise has no tendency whatever to produce such
+effects. There must likewise be Determination of Force in the one
+definite direction required, and it is in the source of this
+Determination that the true cause must be sought to which the result is
+due. It is not simply because iron is hammered and filed that a
+railway-engine is produced; nor is it sufficient that a block of marble
+be chipped with mallet and chisel in order to obtain a statue of Apollo.
+Unless some influence comes in to direct the forces in such cases to
+their respective results, the results will never by any possibility be
+secured. And in the processes of Nature such direction or determination
+must be exercised in particulars inconceivably intricate, to which the
+works of man furnish no parallel. As Mr. Croll writes:
+
+     If a tree is to be formed, the lines of least resistance must all
+     be determined and adjusted in relation to the objective idea of the
+     tree; of the root; of the branches; of the leaves; of the bud; of
+     the fruit; and of every part of the tree. But this is not all: the
+     tree is built up molecule by molecule, each of which requires a
+     special determination, and, beyond all this, we have the
+     structureless protoplasm, which must be differentiated according to
+     the objective idea of the whole. What produces this marvellous
+     adjustment of means to ends?
+
+And as he insists in another passage:
+
+     The determinations which take place in nature occur not at random,
+     but according to a plan--an objective idea. Thus the question is
+     not simply what causes a body to take some direction, but what
+     causes it to take, among the infinite number of possible
+     directions, the proper direction in relation to the idea. In the
+     formation of, say, the leaf of a tree, no two molecules move in
+     identically the same direction or take identically the same path.
+     But each molecule must move in relation to the objective idea of
+     the leaf, or no leaf would be formed. The grand question,
+     therefore, is, What is it that selects from among the infinite
+     number of possible directions the proper one in relation to this
+     idea?
+
+And this sort of thing is going on in every blossom and leaf and blade
+of grass, in every hair and every feather over the surface of the earth.
+
+Truly does our author find here "The Grand Question," for in it we touch
+the very heart of our whole problem, and are forced to consider more
+closely than we have hitherto done of what character must be the
+ultimate Cause which alone can explain the world.
+
+It is, as we have seen, a first principle of Science, that in enquiries
+such as this, we must proceed from experience to inference, from the
+known to the unknown. Arguing thus, we may legitimately gather from
+observed phenomena, that something exists, which even though it be not
+directly within the range of our senses, must certainly be capable of
+producing such phenomena: just as the perturbations of one planet have
+revealed the existence of another; and the lines in their spectra have
+taught us the chemical constitution of the sun and stars.
+
+This principle being borrowed by Science from common-sense, has
+instinctively been ever adopted by those who set themselves to enquire
+of what kind must be that unseen Power at the back of Nature to which
+the fact of law and order may be ascribed. And as there is but one
+force or power within the range of our experience capable of producing
+such an effect, it is but natural that this should have been constantly
+assumed to represent, at least by analogy, the nature of the power
+required. That there is but one cause known to us experimentally, which
+can determine the operation of force towards the attainment of a
+preconditioned result, none will deny--namely the purposive action of an
+intelligent will, as known to us in ourselves and in our
+fellow-men;--and to Will accordingly, immensely more intelligent than
+ours, has been ascribed the establishment of those laws which the
+highest intellects of our race are able partially and dimly to
+apprehend.
+
+It is thus that we are led to the fundamental doctrine of Theism, to
+belief in an intelligent First Cause, according to whose design the
+universe has been fashioned; a cause which must have all that is found
+in the universe or any part of it, including man, and more--for it has
+of itself what all else derives from it--whose purposes necessarily
+transcend our mental grasp--but whose modes of thought are reflected in
+our own, by which they can in some measure be followed through a study
+of their results.
+
+If such a belief, so grounded, be unscientific, as is constantly
+assumed, there must be good arguments to the contrary. It should be
+demonstrable, either that Science has shown such a line of reasoning to
+be unsound, or that she has discovered within her own domain something
+which, at least conceivably, can do the work thus attributed to
+Intelligence--in which case the much-quoted dictum of Lord Kelvin will
+be in point,--that if a probable solution of any problem can be found
+which is consistent with the ordinary course of Nature, we must not go
+beyond Nature in search of one.
+
+If, on the other hand, the above line of reasoning cannot be
+invalidated, and if scientific methods can discover nothing competent to
+effect what has undoubtedly been effected, it is not easy to see how it
+can be unscientific to proceed by inference to what is confessedly
+beyond the scope of observation and experiment.
+
+That "Teleology," or the doctrine of Final Causality,[136] is unworthy
+of serious consideration, is without doubt a common assumption, and some
+writers seem to think that an argument is sufficiently discredited if it
+be styled "teleological." Yet this rather formidable term represents no
+more than the belief that the infinite adaptations of means to results
+observed in Nature are the effect of purpose, not of chance. And if we
+eliminate purpose, what is there left to furnish an explanation, beyond
+the indubitable fact that such adaptations have always been found in
+organic nature, and that we have learnt confidently to anticipate that
+they will appear generation after generation according to the "law of
+heredity"? But this obviously only tells us that they have been produced
+and are likewise transmitted, and throws no light whatever on the cause
+of the marvellous processes to which their production and their
+transmission are due. If we have any rational grounds for expecting that
+such processes will continue to occur, it cannot be merely that they
+have occurred before, but we instinctively infer that the cause to which
+they are ultimately due continues to operate. We are thus as far as ever
+from an answer to the question, What is that cause?
+
+     It may be urged [says Newman][137] if a thing happens once it must
+     happen always; for what is to hinder it? Nay, on the contrary, why,
+     because one particle of matter has a certain property, should all
+     particles have the same? Why, because particles have instanced the
+     property a thousand times, should the thousand and first instance
+     it also? It is _prima facie_ unaccountable that an accident should
+     happen twice, not to speak of it happening always. If we expect a
+     thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an
+     accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may
+     bring it about twice. _What_ is to hinder its happening? rather
+     what is to make it happen? Here we are thrown back from the
+     question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a
+     fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then we have no
+     experience of any cause but Will.
+
+Here is the crucial point: "We have no experience of any cause but
+Will;" and it follows that if, as Science bids us, we base inference on
+experience alone, there can be no doubt about the conclusion to which we
+shall be led.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+No different is the verdict of Sir John Herschel:
+
+     The presence of _Mind_ [he writes][138] is what solves the whole
+     difficulty: so far, at least, as it brings it within the sphere of
+     our consciousness, and into conformity with our own experience of
+     what action is.
+
+That the introduction of intelligent purpose, as a factor, sufficiently
+meets the requirements of our reason cannot be denied. As Bishop Butler
+insists, it is even impossible for any man in his senses to say that the
+problem can be more easily solved without it. And witnesses not merely
+unfriendly, but positively and even bitterly hostile, are compelled to
+admit that on whatever other grounds they may reject Theism, it is not
+because this doctrine is inadequate as an explanation of the world we
+know.
+
+     It seems to me [says Professor Huxley][139] that "creation," in the
+     ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no
+     difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe
+     was not in existence; and that it made its appearance ... in
+     consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being. The
+     so-called _a priori_ arguments against Theism, and given a Deity,
+     against the possibility of creative acts, appear to me to be devoid
+     of reasonable foundation.
+
+Similarly, that uncompromising foe of religious belief in any shape,
+Professor W. K. Clifford, replying to Dr. Martineau who based his
+argument on the existence of the moral law, as well as the evidence of
+design in Nature, wrote thus:[140]
+
+     I fully admit that the theistic hypothesis, so grounded, and
+     considered apart from objections elsewhere arising, is a reasonable
+     hypothesis and an explanation of the facts. The idea of an external
+     conscious being is unavoidably suggested, as it seems to me, by the
+     categorical imperative of the moral sense; and moreover in a way
+     quite independent, by the aspect of nature, which seems to answer
+     to our questionings with an intelligence akin to our own.
+
+On the other hand, where is an alternative hypothesis to be found of
+which as much can be said,--which will justify itself to reason, by
+accounting for the facts? That no purely materialistic or mechanical
+theory will suffice is not only obvious to common-sense, but is
+acknowledged by those who would gladly find such a theory sufficient.
+
+     It would be a great delusion [writes Weismann][141] if any one
+     were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the
+     universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical
+     principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal
+     matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual
+     need for causality.
+
+Similarly, Professor Huxley admits that even his primeval cosmic nebula
+with the world potential in its womb, leaves something to desire.
+
+     The more purely a mechanist the speculator is [he writes][142] the
+     more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of
+     which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and
+     the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,
+     who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular
+     arrangement was not[143] intended to evolve the phenomena of the
+     universe.
+
+Accordingly, although he was clearly persuaded that Theism is a doctrine
+which we can never have sufficient grounds for accepting, Professor
+Huxley repudiated the notion that scientific discovery has done anything
+to disprove it. Thus he tells us,[144] that, in order to be a
+teleologist, and yet accept Evolution, it is only necessary
+
+     to suppose that the original plan was sketched out ... that the
+     purpose was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out of which
+     the animals have come.
+
+And again,[145] he thus expressed himself regarding two objections
+commonly brought against Darwinism, namely that it introduces "chance"
+as a factor in nature, and that it is atheistic:
+
+     Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons believe in
+     "chance"; and the philosophical difficulties of Theism now are
+     neither greater nor less than they have been ever since Theism was
+     invented.
+
+Accordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we
+are precisely where men have always been,--dependent upon arguments such
+as satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard
+the starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence
+must appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.[146]
+
+That scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning,
+we have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose
+conclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found
+standing in the very front rank of Science.
+
+Like the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a
+Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from
+a study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a
+part of Natural Philosophy.[147]
+
+     We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and
+     Tait][148] the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and
+     Upholder of all things.
+
+     When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G.
+     Stokes,][149] it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to
+     be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But
+     design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study
+     then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a
+     Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things
+     that we behold.
+
+Lord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.[150]
+
+     I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither
+     affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms
+     creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an
+     article of belief.
+
+Thirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture
+before the British Association[151] thus spoke concerning Molecules:
+
+     They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and
+     measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed
+     on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in
+     measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we
+     reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they
+     are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning
+     created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of
+     which heaven and earth consist.
+
+It is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science
+who altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false,
+or at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That,
+however, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced
+as if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be
+determined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is
+abundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which
+influences the great majority of those who style themselves
+rationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be
+established they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as
+they are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can
+pretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely
+exploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such
+statements, that our witnesses have been called--and for this purpose
+their testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his
+Presidential address told the British Association:[152]
+
+     It is true that among scientific men, as in other classes, crude
+     views are to be met with as to the deeper things of Nature; but
+     that the life-long beliefs of Newton, of Faraday, and of Maxwell,
+     are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind, is surely a
+     proposition which I need not pause to refute.
+
+And when from authority we turn to the line of argument adopted by those
+who would impugn that upon which Theists rely, and who reject the idea
+of an intelligent First Cause either as superfluous, or as incapable of
+verification, we find but two courses one or other of which they feel
+themselves compelled to adopt, although it is not very easy to
+understand the state of mind which can rest satisfied with either.
+
+Some, on the one hand, frankly admit that Science has not by her own
+proper methods discovered any ultimate principle of things, and never
+will. But on that very account, they maintain, this ultimate principle,
+whatever it may be, must remain utterly unknown to us--for we can never
+_know_ anything except by the methods of Science. Accordingly, although
+the theistic hypothesis would confessedly furnish such an explanation as
+is lacking, we must not adopt it because we cannot test it
+experimentally.
+
+And yet in ordinary life we have no difficulty in arguing from effect to
+cause in just the same manner, and satisfying ourselves of the existence
+of what we can as little touch or see as the First Cause itself. Thus we
+are convinced of the genius of Shakespeare and Napoleon, and that there
+was a difference between the character of Robespierre and that of Howard
+the Philanthropist. But no man ever saw or touched either genius or
+character, which can be known only by their results. It is by inference
+far less legitimate that those proceed who, like Haeckel, seek in the
+forces of Nature themselves an explanation of phenomena which, as we
+know them, they are wholly incapable of producing. Instead of arguing
+that a cause must therefore exist which is beyond Nature, but whose
+character our own experience enables us in some measure, and
+analogically, to learn, these philosophers start with the assumption
+that no such cause is possible, and then proceed to draw the consequence
+that the condition of Nature must once have been totally different from
+what it actually is, enabling her forces to produce results which no
+experience of any sort indicates as possible.
+
+Those who adopt such an attitude of nescience, and in the proper sense
+of the word are termed Agnostics, find themselves compelled accordingly
+to leave their system in the air, with no basis more solid than the
+elephant and tortoise on which Hindoo astronomers rested the world. They
+must ignore the fundamental principle of Causation, from which we
+started our present enquiry, and in consequence it is impossible that
+their systems should, as Professor Weismann says, satisfy our
+intellectual needs.
+
+Others, on the other hand, declare that the Theistic hypothesis must be
+dismissed, because a better has been found, Science having discovered
+within her own sphere an effectual substitute for the supposed First
+Cause. When we enquire what this may be, we are told that it is the "Law
+of Substance," or "Evolution," or "Nature" herself, or an "Infinite
+Eternal Energy unknown and unknowable," but devoid of intellect and
+will--or "Monism," or some other similar abstraction which can represent
+no idea at all, unless--as often happens--it be clad in the robes of its
+rival, and credited with the very powers and attributes denied to the
+First Cause, so as to become practically the same thing under another
+and misleading name. Regarding this point there will be more to be said
+presently. Here, it will be sufficient to note that this is in truth the
+only meaning which can be attached to much of the language of so-called
+scientific writers.
+
+     Who [asks Mr. Wollaston][153] is this Nature ... who has such
+     tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous
+     performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes when
+     dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent
+     abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of
+     an intelligent First Cause?
+
+So at the end of his life Clerk-Maxwell characteristically observed,
+that he had studied many queer religions and philosophies, but had
+found none of them that would work without God concealed somewhere.
+
+Finally, a warning uttered by Lord Rayleigh in the address quoted above
+must not be forgotten. After acknowledging that "unfortunately" there
+are writers speaking in her name who have set themselves to foster the
+prevailing belief that Science necessarily tends towards materialism, he
+thus continued:
+
+     It would be easy, however, to lay too much stress upon the opinions
+     of even such distinguished workers as these. Men who devote their
+     lives to investigation cultivate a love of truth for its own sake,
+     and endeavour instinctively to clear up, and not, as is too often
+     the object in business and politics, to obscure, a difficult
+     question. So far the opinion of a scientific worker may have a
+     special value; but I do not think that he has a claim superior to
+     that of other educated men, to assume the attitude of a prophet. In
+     his heart he knows that underneath the theories that he constructs
+     there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile. The higher
+     mysteries of being, if penetrable at all by the human intellect,
+     require other weapons than those of calculation and experiment.
+
+
+
+
+XII
+
+PURPOSE AND CHANCE
+
+
+An objection is no doubt awaiting us which many consider absolutely
+fatal to the argument for purpose or design in nature, as above
+presented. That argument, it will be said, rests entirely upon the
+assumption that the sole alternative to Purpose is _Chance_, an
+assumption which, if not dishonest, betrays ignorance scarcely less
+discreditable: for men of science constantly warn us that there is no
+such thing as Chance,--that every occurrence in nature, one as much as
+another, testifies to the uniformity and regularity of natural
+causation,--and that if we speak of any phenomenon being due to Chance,
+this term is but a conventional symbol signifying that we do not know
+what caused it.
+
+Amongst those who take up this position, which is well-nigh universal,
+no better representative need be sought than Professor Huxley, who
+treated the point formally, and was manifestly well satisfied with his
+performance. We have already heard him declare belief in Chance to be an
+absurdity of which none but parsons could be guilty, a class in which he
+clearly conceived the low-water-mark of intelligence to be reached. On
+another occasion,[154] he set himself expressly to the exposure of what
+he described as, "The most singular of the, perhaps immortal, fallacies,
+which live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted
+them."
+
+     Probably the best answer [he writes] to those who talk of Darwinism
+     meaning the reign of "Chance," is to ask them what they themselves
+     understand by "Chance." Do they believe that anything in this
+     universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really
+     conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been
+     predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of
+     Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique
+     superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been
+     illumined by a ray of scientific thought.
+
+As an object lesson for his enlightenment, the Professor bids one of
+these benighted folk betake himself to the sea-shore on which a heavy
+storm is breaking; and having painted a rather elaborate word-picture of
+the scene, he thus continues:
+
+     Surely here, if anywhere, he [the unenlightened one] will say that
+     chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the
+     very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that
+     here as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not
+     a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a
+     rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary
+     consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a
+     sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent
+     physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,
+     every one of these "chance" events.
+
+This, however, is mere beating of the air, having no bearing whatever
+upon the question at issue; and we can only wonder that so able a man as
+Huxley could thus absolutely miss the whole point, while remaining
+serenely unconscious that he did so. No sane man ever entertained the
+foolish notion with which he credits his man of straw. On the contrary,
+it is precisely those whom he so heartily despises, that _dis_believe in
+Chance, and deny it any share in the making of the world. They neither
+regard Chance as a possible cause of phenomena, nor make of it a kind of
+deity or fetish, as some appear inclined to do with Science. Their
+contention is that according to those who, with Huxley, reject the idea
+of intelligent purpose, Chance would needs be introduced as a ruling
+element in nature, which would be absurd. Nor in thus arguing do they
+introduce any notion so irrational as that of "absolute" Chance, of
+events happening without causes. But unquestionably there can be
+"relative" Chance. A cause fully sufficient for the production of a
+result, may have no tendency whatever to determine or direct this result
+to a particular end; and if in such circumstances this end be attained
+it is by Chance. In particular, should many independent results of
+purely mechanical forces combine to produce a result, as intelligence
+would combine them, its production can only be ascribed to Chance.
+"Chance" has therefore a very real meaning. It is not a Cause, but the
+absence of Cause: not of Cause altogether, but of the _determining_
+Cause requisite for the production of certain results. The argument
+based upon the impotence of Chance to obtain such results, is precisely
+that which the most exact of all the Sciences, Mathematics, accepts and
+applies in the Theory of Chances.
+
+The answer to the question which Professor Huxley evidently deems
+unanswerable is plain enough. By "Chance" is meant the concurrence,
+unguided by Purpose, of independent forces to produce a definite effect.
+"Chance" denotes the absence of Purpose, as "Vacuum" denotes the absence
+of air; and when it is denied that certain results can come about by
+chance, or fortuitously, it is as when we deny that life can be
+sustained _in vacuo_. It is no positive feature or action of the vacuum
+that we have in mind, for its essence is negative; but just because of
+that negative character, experience has taught us, that it cannot fulfil
+certain functions. In the same manner the potency of "Chance" is denied,
+simply because it is not Purpose.
+
+That there are phenomena for which "Chance" thus defined cannot account
+is, surely, obvious. If a man sits down at a piano and plays "God Save
+the King," no evidence in the world would persuade Professor Huxley or
+any one else, that the performer had never before seen a musical
+instrument, nor knew of the existence of such an air or any other, but
+just put his fingers on the keys as the spirit moved him. Such a story
+would be rightly felt to be absolutely incredible: and yet the notes he
+produced--equally with those of the howling chorus of winds and
+waves--were the necessary effects of physical causes; given that
+particular strings were struck, they could not but follow. The whole
+point is, however, that in this case the result is _not_ a howling
+chorus, but a melody; not mere formless noise, but an orderly
+composition, constructed on definite principles which our mind can
+recognize. It is in regard of this particular feature of the result that
+Force of itself, as we have seen, explains nothing, and that, if there
+is to be any explanation at all, we must know something as to how Force
+received the needful Direction or Determination.
+
+It is only in regard of human action that we can, as in the above
+instance, find an example of what may be called pure fortuity, for such
+action alone can be traced up to an initial cause, namely the exercise
+of Will. No one can have a right to call the action of natural forces
+fortuitous; on the contrary, we have seen arguments that in the
+inorganic world itself purpose must be recognized. But an action
+directed by purpose to one result may be quite fortuitous in regard of
+another. A man who digging a foundation for a house finds a buried
+treasure, discovers this by chance. Although his action was ruled by a
+most definite purpose, that purpose was not this. So again when,
+according to the old story, certain Phoenician mariners finding no
+stones on the sea-shore suitable for the purpose, used blocks of natron
+to support their cooking-pots, and so produced glass, they were led to
+the discovery by mere chance. And in like manner, however definitely the
+forces of matter may be determined each to its own proper end, there are
+results which if produced by them must be as purely fortuitous as such
+an invention made by men who thought only of preparing their dinner. The
+cable which was being laid to America having, in 1865, snapped and sunk
+in mid-Atlantic, it was determined in the following year to attempt its
+recovery. Meanwhile the shore-end at Valencia was still connected with
+the dial-plate, on which messages had been scored between ship and shore
+while the cable was intact. A telegraphist was constantly on duty,
+watching the needle which was never still, being deflected hither and
+thither by the earth-currents, working through the wires. On a sudden,
+however, the needle spelled out the letters "Got it," and it was known
+with absolute certainty that there was a man at the other end. It is no
+doubt perfectly true that each previous movement had been the necessary
+consequence of the force applied, just as truly as those which coincided
+with the conventions of the telegraphist's alphabet; but win any one say
+that such coincidence could conceivably be attributable to the forces of
+magnetism alone, however exact to the laws according to which they
+operate?
+
+It must always be remembered that the question we have to discuss is,
+how far Science casts any light upon such questions as the one before
+us. And since "Science" is taken to mean knowledge acquired through the
+observation of phenomena alone, we have at present to enquire whether
+material forces, the only ones of which observation directly tells us
+anything, could have produced such effects as we have considered,
+otherwise than by mere "Chance"? If they could not, is it imaginable
+that they produced these effects at all? And it appears obvious that
+unless there be Purpose at the back of Nature, Chance must be
+acknowledged as the architect of the universe.
+
+Professor Huxley tells us, it is true, that such an idea could be
+entertained by no one whose mind had ever been illumined by a ray of
+scientific thought. In face of this it is rather remarkable to find that
+the idea was undoubtedly entertained by Mr. Darwin, who took for granted
+that to deny Purpose is to affirm Chance.
+
+     I am conscious [he wrote to Asa Gray][155] that I am in an utterly
+     hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is
+     the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing
+     as the result of Design.
+
+And again:[156]
+
+     I cannot any how be contented to view this wonderful universe, and
+     especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is
+     the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as
+     resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or
+     bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this
+     notion _at all_ satisfies me.
+
+Professor Haeckel too is by no means in accord on this point with his
+friend Professor Huxley. He writes:[157]
+
+     One group of philosophers affirms, in accordance with the
+     teleological conception, that the whole cosmos is an orderly
+     system, in which every phenomenon has its aim and purpose; there is
+     no such thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical
+     theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a
+     monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose
+     whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special
+     result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the
+     heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find
+     any trace of a controlling purpose--all is the result of chance.
+     Each party is right--according to its definition of chance. The
+     general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of
+     substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;
+     in this sense there is no such thing as chance. Yet it is not only
+     lawful, but necessary to retain the term for the purpose of
+     expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are
+     not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own
+     mechanical cause independent of the other. Everybody knows that
+     chance, in this monistic sense, plays an important part in the life
+     of man and in the universe at large. That, however, does not
+     prevent us from recognizing in each "chance" event, as we do in the
+     evolution of the entire cosmos, the universal sovereignty of
+     nature's supreme law, _the law of substance_.
+
+There is a good deal here which is less clear in the way of argument
+than could be wished. The famous _Law of Substance_, as we have seen,
+has two articles: The indestructibility of matter, and the conservation
+of energy. What light either of these principles may be supposed to shed
+on such questions as the adaptation of organs to their functions is by
+no means obvious. To say that there is no design in the organic world,
+because it is a special result of biological agencies,--is quite of a
+piece with the contention which has actually been made, that we can no
+longer argue to Design, with Paley, from the analogy of a watch, since
+"nearly every part of a watch is now made by inanimate machinery."[158]
+Thus much, however, is perfectly clear: the competence of Chance is
+recognized to originate a world like ours, and to enable Nature, as
+Professor Clifford says, seemingly to answer our questionings with an
+intelligence akin to our own.
+
+It would thus appear that when Newton asks,--Was the eye fashioned
+without knowledge of the laws of light, or the ear, without knowledge of
+those of sound?--we are to answer in the affirmative, and to say that
+such organs are but special results of biological agencies, under the
+general management of the Law of Substance.
+
+That such a reply cannot with any truth be termed scientific is
+plain--for it touches matters which by her own acknowledgment Science
+cannot reach;--nor does it seem probable that this kind of talk would
+convince anybody, were there nothing more. Undoubtedly those who
+persuade themselves that the Order of the Universe can be sufficiently
+explained without introducing the idea of purpose or design, are
+influenced by other considerations than these.
+
+(1) With some it is the argument, which appears chiefly to have weighed
+with Mr. Darwin, who constantly speaks of it as the great obstacle to
+that belief in Design which the marvels of the universe would otherwise
+necessitate. This he based on certain features in Nature which appeared
+to him incompatible with the work of a beneficent Author, mainly the
+existence of suffering amongst animals in whose case it cannot be
+supposed to subserve any purpose of moral benefit. As he wrote to Asa
+Gray:[159]
+
+     I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should
+     wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.
+     There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
+     myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
+     created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
+     feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat
+     should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in
+     the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
+
+Such a mode of meeting the arguments for Design, though only indirect,
+undoubtedly deserves serious consideration, touching as it does the
+darkest of all mysteries--the Origin of Evil. It is clear, however, that
+in Mr. Darwin's case, and probably in that of many others, its effect
+was due in no slight degree to imagination rather than to reason. He
+picks out one or two instances of seeming cruelty in Nature, as though
+they were something exceptional, and appears to imply that they create
+an obstacle to a belief which Nature as a whole almost forces upon him.
+In reality, the same sort of thing goes on everywhere. Animal life from
+beginning to end is a record of rapine and slaughter, as Tennyson
+declared in a verse too trite to bear quotation. The most petted of pet
+dogs has no more compunction than a tiger in worrying creatures weaker
+than itself, and a robin-redbreast takes far more lives daily than does
+a sparrow-hawk. But to draw from these facts such large conclusions--is
+quite another matter. Can we imagine that we are qualified by the
+fulness of our knowledge to pronounce judgment and declare that there
+can be no good end where we fail to perceive one? As Mr. Darwin admits
+in the very same passage: "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is
+too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on
+the mind of Newton."
+
+How much is there in the actions of persons much lowlier than Newton
+which to the most intelligent of animals, dogs, elephants, or monkeys,
+could they speculate at all, must seem wholly devoid of sense;--as for
+instance that men should spend such continual labour in digging and
+ploughing. So again, in his famous lecture on Coal, Professor Huxley
+depicts what might have been the reflections of a giant reptile of the
+Carboniferous Epoch, suggested by the seemingly senseless waste of
+nature's powers in the production of the primeval forests, that have
+furnished the coal measures, to which so much of our progress and
+civilization is directly due.
+
+And, after all, given the universal law of death for all living things,
+it would hardly appear that we can assure ourselves that any attendant
+circumstance constitutes a greater evil--as Mr. Darwin's argument seems
+to assume; and yet, it does not appear ever to have been argued that
+there can be no purpose in Nature since no organic life endures for
+ever. Most probably, if we knew enough, we should plainly see that
+nothing could be more cruel than to have omitted the carnivora from
+creation, leaving herbivorous animals to multiply till they starved one
+another to death, or at least to perish of senile decay far more
+painfully than under the fangs of tigers and wolves. Instances might
+moreover be quoted which serve to remind us how impossible it is rightly
+to estimate the true character of suffering amongst creatures altogether
+different from ourselves. Thus when, as eye-witnesses report, young
+scorpions clinging to their mother devour her alive, scientifically
+avoiding as long as possible all vital parts and mortal wounds--we are
+inclined to consider them monsters of wickedness, and their parent as a
+model of motherly devotion, whose sufferings cannot be less horrible
+than those of a caterpillar similarly eaten by the ichneumon grub. But
+we cannot with any reason impute more moral blame to the young
+scorpions, than to the lambkins which draw sustenance from their dams in
+another fashion which we find touching and poetical; while as for the
+mother--who doubtless treated her own parent in just the same
+fashion--she exhibits no symptom to show that she resents her
+offsprings' advances, any more than does the ewe, but on the contrary
+has her sting ever ready for any one who would interfere with them.
+
+(2) It is a still more common objection to the doctrine of purpose
+everywhere in Nature, that such an idea is negatived by the continuity
+and uniformity of natural laws, precluding the notion of constant
+interference by another, supernatural, Agent. But this objection is
+based upon an entire misconception. No one imagines such intervention,
+or that purpose guides nature as a pilot guides a ship by repeated
+orders to the man at the wheel. Undoubtedly the reign of law in nature
+is uninterrupted, but in that law purpose is interwoven as the
+controlling element; just as the mind of Homer governs the hand of every
+printer who sets up type for a new edition of the _Iliad_.
+
+(3) Finally, there is the argument, already alluded to, that inasmuch as
+the most complex structures are daily transmitted under our eyes by
+generation, we have evidence that nature can produce them from her own
+resources, and by the operation of a merely natural law, such as no one
+doubts generation to be.
+
+Such an argument, it is evident, merely begs the question at issue,
+offering as it does no explanation, or suggestion, as to how a power so
+marvellous was acquired. It would be equally philosophical to argue that
+there is nothing wonderful about the genius of a great poet because we
+confidently anticipate that it will be exhibited in the next piece he
+produces.
+
+It is likewise clear that, here again, imagination rather than reason
+furnishes the argument. In the first place, were there nothing else, no
+explanation whatever would thus be afforded as to how the structures in
+question were first produced, before they could be transmitted. And,
+secondly, which is still more important, generation--far from furnishing
+an explanation of anything--introduces us to mysteries yet more
+inscrutable than any we have yet encountered, and to problems which
+seem to admit of no possible solution apart from, not only Purpose, but
+transcendent Power.
+
+Doubtless the propagation of life is ruled by natural law, but how such
+law effects its object we understand immeasurably less than we
+understand the flight of birds or butterflies. As a recent writer
+reminds us,[160] what is transmitted from parents to offspring "is not a
+new form or structure, but only the _potentiality_ of such a new form:
+which, in suitable circumstances, builds _itself_ up out of surrounding
+inorganic and organic material." As Lord Grimthorpe expresses the same
+truth:[161]
+
+     If we suppose an apple-tree to have once grown somehow, and to have
+     somehow got power to produce seeds, that would not produce any more
+     apple-trees, unless the seeds, and all the adjacent atoms that are
+     wanted, had the power and the will to combine and grow into another
+     apple-tree. The first hen that laid an egg performed a wonderful
+     feat enough, but it would have done no good unless the atoms of the
+     egg also knew and resolved what to do to turn themselves into a
+     chicken. Yet spontaneous evolutionists are in the habit of slurring
+     over generation as a thing too "natural," and therefore too easy
+     and simple to require explanation.
+
+The continual operation of a law such as this, certainly does not remove
+mysteries, nor make it more easy to understand how the order and the
+marvels of the universe can rationally be attributed to Chance rather
+than to Design, according to "this new philosophy of effects without
+causes and laws without a lawgiver."[162] For "fortuitous" means, as
+Professor Case has well observed,[163] not the accidental, as opposed to
+the regular laws of nature, but the spontaneous necessity of nature, as
+opposed to the voluntary designs of intelligence. Nor is it only in the
+organic world that we find the need of such a factor to explain
+phenomena; for it is throughout more essential than any other force to
+account for Nature as we find her--in such a manner as to satisfy the
+logical demands of our mind. We learn as little from observation and
+experiment as to the fundamental laws of matter,--gravitation, for
+instance, which Faraday and Herschel termed "the mystery of mysteries,"
+or chemical affinities, or the nature of Ether--as concerning anything
+in organic nature; though in the latter we undoubtedly mount to a higher
+plane of mysteriousness. And in either case we could learn nothing
+whatever,--that is to say, Science would be wholly impossible,--did we
+not find natural phenomena respond to our enquiries with what seems an
+intelligence akin to our own. And accordingly it appears but
+reasonable,--that is to say, truly scientific,--to exclaim as did even
+Diderot--"Quoi! le monde forme prouverait moins une intelligence que le
+monde explique!"
+
+
+
+
+XIII
+
+MONISM
+
+
+All systems of philosophy that reject the idea of an intelligent First
+Cause, which alone is self-existent, and whose being is of a higher
+order than that of aught else,--base their denial on the assumption that
+no such distinction of nature either exists or is possible,--that there
+is but one reality, namely the substance whereof the sensible world
+consists,--that this has always existed with the same forces it has now,
+and that it is the source of all phenomena. This assumption of the
+unreality of whatever is beyond the scope of sense, which has ever been
+at the bottom of materialistic systems, is now elaborately formulated as
+a creed, declared by Professor Haeckel and his following to be the only
+creed which science can tolerate. This is termed _Monism_,--from the
+Greek Monos, "single," and is opposed to _Dualism_, or the
+doctrine that there are two orders of being, or two distinct substances,
+material and spiritual.[164]
+
+According to monistic teaching, therefore, there exists but one _Thing_,
+that which we usually call Matter, but might equally well call
+Mind,--for all phenomena whatever, whether mental or material, are but
+various shapes which it assumes, exhibiting diverse aspects of itself.
+Thus all the objects which appear to have a being of their own,--as the
+globe we inhabit, the furniture of earth and heaven, we ourselves,--are
+but the forms momentarily assumed by this protean entity in its
+ceaseless transfigurations, and have no more existence of their own than
+the ripples on a pool of water or the faces we see in the fire. It
+follows that when the particular phase of this basic substance is ended
+which brings us into being, (or rather which we _are_,) we like
+everything else, sink into blank nothing,--so that the mighty dead whom
+nations honour, or the loved ones whose memory we cherish, are blotted
+out of existence as utterly as the days and nights which made up the
+span of their lives. But amongst its permutations and combinations this
+solitary reality can produce the phenomena which we call thought, just
+as much as those which we call motion, and accordingly the _Aeneid_ or
+_Hamlet_ is its work, a mechanical product of evolution, no less than a
+seam of coal, or an eclipse of the moon.
+
+Such, in outline, is the philosophical system which commends itself, as
+Professor Haeckel assures us,[165] to all men of science, who combine
+the necessary conditions, of scientific knowledge, mental acumen, moral
+courage, and intellectual independence. It may be rightly described as
+materialistic pantheism; for while, according to it, everything is
+equally divine, in the only sense in which anything can be so,
+everything is likewise equally material, as falling under the category
+of what we know as matter, and within the direct cognizance of physical
+science.
+
+Accurately to sketch a doctrine such as this is a task of no slight
+difficulty. It undoubtedly contradicts the instinctive teaching of our
+consciousness, so that, as Professor Haeckel admits[166] in the
+primitive stages of both religion and philosophy Monism is unknown.
+Moreover, even those who most loudly profess it, have by no means as yet
+succeeded in realizing their own system, and after having from time to
+time formally enunciated its articles, proceed forthwith to ignore them,
+and in the staple of their discourse speak like other men in terms which
+have no meaning if the tenets of their creed have any. As a natural
+result their exposition of monistic doctrine is not very easy of
+apprehension, but it seems to be not unfairly reflected in the above
+summary.
+
+Professor Haeckel himself thus expounds "that unifying conception of
+nature as a whole which we designate in a single word as Monism."[167]
+
+     By this we unambiguously express our conviction that there lives
+     "one spirit in all things," and that the whole cognizable world is
+     constituted, and has been developed, in accordance with one common
+     fundamental law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential
+     unity of inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been
+     evolved from the former only at a comparatively late period. We
+     cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between these two great
+     divisions of nature, any more than we can recognize an absolute
+     distinction between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, or
+     between the lower animals and man. Similarly, we regard the whole
+     of human knowledge as a structural unity; in this sphere we refuse
+     to accept the distinction usually drawn between the natural and the
+     spiritual. The latter is only a part of the former (or _vice
+     versa_); both are one. Our monistic view of the world belongs,
+     therefore, to that group of philosophical systems which from other
+     points of view have been designated also as mechanical or as
+     pantheistic.
+
+More concisely and clearly, Professor Romanes tells us:[168]
+
+     Mental phenomena and physical phenomena, although apparently
+     diverse, are really identical.
+
+And in a work recently issued for the express purpose of expounding and
+diffusing the new gospel, we read:[169]
+
+     Just as the same particles of matter may at one time form parts of
+     a rose, and at another time parts of a mushroom, so the same force
+     may at one time strike a church as lightning, and at another time
+     may be the mother-love that rocks the cradle.
+
+If such conceptions are not easy to grasp, there can be no doubt as to
+the practical conclusions to which they lead. We have already heard from
+Professor Haeckel that human freedom is an utter delusion. We have
+likewise seen that the only term in prospect is utter annihilation,
+which Professor Haeckel endeavours to persuade us is the consummation we
+ought to wish.
+
+"The best we can desire," he says,[170] "after a courageous life, spent
+in doing good according to our light, is the eternal peace of the grave.
+'Lord give them an eternal rest.'"
+
+It is evident however that in order to secure such a reward it is not
+necessary to show any courage, or attempt any sort of good-work, for
+according to him it equally awaits the most selfish and abandoned
+voluptuary.
+
+Finally,[171]
+
+     At our death there disappears only the individual form in which the
+     nerve-substance was fashioned, and the personal "soul" which
+     represented the work performed by this. The complicated chemical
+     combinations of that nervous mass pass over into other
+     combinations--by decomposition, and the kinetic energy produced by
+     them is transformed into other forms of nature.
+
+      Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
+      Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.--
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+which lines others besides Haeckel are fond of quoting on this subject
+as if they had any possible connexion with it. It would be more to the
+point, and far more interesting, were some indication afforded of the
+chemical equivalent of the qualities which made Caesar imperial, or those
+which distinguished the author of the above lines from the bards of our
+Music Halls. That, when a man is no more, his material part may serve
+various material purposes, is no more than was known to the first savage
+who made a drum with his enemy's skin, or used his skull for a
+drinking-cup.
+
+As has been said, the Monistic philosophy claims to be above all things
+scientific, and upon this ground are we bidden to accept it. But what is
+the meaning of this claim? The one argument, apart from mere assertion,
+brought to show that spirit is not distinct from matter, is drawn from
+the part undoubtedly played by the brain in the process of thought,
+though we see far less in this, as in other connexions, than the
+assertions made by unscientific writers might lead us to imagine. But
+when all this is most fully acknowledged can it be said that the state
+of the question is changed from what it was? To listen to Monists, it
+might be supposed that the intimate connexion between soul and body is
+a new discovery, undreamt of in former ages,--and that we have now
+arrived at a demonstration that it is our material part that actually
+does our thinking. But, as a matter of fact, like other fundamental
+questions, this is exactly as it has ever been, and so far as Science is
+concerned, we are just as much in the dark respecting it as men ever
+were. Though the philosophers of former days were unaware of all the
+departmental details of brain activity, they understood as well as we do
+the essential point, that in our composite nature soul and body form
+_one_ being, whose every operation is of mixed character like itself.
+The soul alone is the intelligent principle, yet all objects of
+knowledge must come to it through sense, and in the senses it can be
+reached only by the mechanical media of light, or sound, or touch. So
+firm was their grip of this principle that the Schoolmen styled the soul
+the "substantial form" of the body, and in their mouth this term
+expressed a union more essential and intimate than modern philosophers
+can perhaps imagine.
+
+And, on the other hand, have all the results of modern research brought
+anything to light which tends to show that matter can by any possibility
+_think_? We are assured on the contrary, upon unimpeachable authority,
+that however we may succeed in tracing the mechanical processes of
+sensation to their furthest limit, it remains absolutely inconceivable
+to us how the gulf is crossed that lies between this and rational
+perception. So Professor Tyndall tells us:[172]
+
+     The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding
+     facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite
+     thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur
+     simultaneously, we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor
+     apparently any rudiments of an organ, which would enable us to pass
+     by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear
+     together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so
+     expanded as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the
+     brain, were we capable of following all their motions, all their
+     groupings and electrical discharges, if such there be, and were we
+     intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and
+     feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the
+     problem--"How are these physical processes connected with the facts
+     of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes remains still
+     intellectually impassable.
+
+With these views Professor Huxley[173] expresses his agreement, and
+although he contrives to confuse the issue very considerably, as is not
+unusual when he undertakes to philosophize, he lays down in the clearest
+possible terms that nothing whatever is _known_ as to the connexion of
+mechanical processes with thought, whence it follows that on this point
+Science has nothing to tell us.
+
+"I really know nothing whatever [he writes] and never hope to know
+anything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to
+states of consciousness is effected."
+
+It should be needless to repeat that if nothing is known regarding all
+this, it is mere charlatanism to pretend that Science tells us anything
+about it, and those who make such assertions use words to which no
+meaning can attach. Unfortunately such a practice is far from uncommon
+in connexion with these questions. What sense can there be conceivable
+in the well-known materialistic doctrine that the brain secretes
+thought, just as the proper organs secrete bile or saliva? Bile and
+saliva are material substances, with a definite chemical constitution,
+each adapted to one definite function. But, Thought! It would be as
+intelligible to talk of secreting the British Constitution, the Steam
+Engine, and the Differential Calculus.
+
+So much for the sole basis of Monistic argument. When we turn to some
+other considerations it certainly becomes no easier to understand the
+claim of Monism to be scientific. In the first place, as we have seen,
+in order to furnish the system with any semblance of truth, it has been
+found necessary to attribute to the ultimate elements of matter
+qualities which all our experience denies them; for Professor Haeckel
+has told us that "the two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable
+matter and ether, are not dead, and only moved by extrinsic force, but
+they are endowed with sensation and will." Of such attributes, and that
+of self-mobility, it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been
+said already. Assuredly nothing can look less like the great ultimate
+reality, of whose ceaseless metamorphoses, we are but a flitting phase,
+than the material substances with which we can do what we like,
+investigating their laws, exploring their constitution, and setting them
+tasks which we know exactly how they will accomplish.
+
+Another point in the same connexion is no less important. What is this
+one _Thing_, this Ultimate and Solitary Self-existent Reality, from
+which Monism takes its title? Professor Haeckel has told us of two
+fundamental forms of substance,--ponderable matter and ether. These he
+evidently supposes, as his creed requires, to be radically the same: but
+what right has he to take such a supposition for a fact? and unless this
+unity be a fact, what becomes of Monism? What has Science ever
+discovered that can justify any one in speaking of Ether and Matter as
+one and the same? How, then, can a theory that assumes their identity be
+termed "scientific?"
+
+Or, leaving Ether alone, "that half-discovered entity," as Lord
+Salisbury styled it on a famous occasion, and restricting our attention
+to ponderable matter, concerning which we know a little more,--how can
+even this be spoken of as "One"? As we have seen already it is only by a
+figure of speech that the term "Matter" can be used at all. It stands
+not for a single thing, but for countless millions and billions of
+atoms, dispersed through space, some of one kind some of another, no one
+of which can be imagined to owe its existence or its properties to any
+other. To say that matter is self-existent is to say that every several
+atom is self-existent. If this be so, and if this be the ultimate
+Reality,--then there are as many first principles, or first causes, as
+there are atoms. Yet none of these could do anything to the purpose
+towards the evolution of anything, without the concurrence of a
+multitude of others, nor would such concurrence be possible but for the
+reign of law, which none of them can have instituted, but to which all
+alike are subject. Were matter the great reality, even matter composed
+of "animated atoms," the term _Monism_ would be sadly out of keeping,
+and should yield its place to _Myriadism_. If, on the other hand, there
+_is_ a unifying principle amid such diversity, this it must be which can
+control and direct all to one end.
+
+It is undoubtedly hard to understand how the First Principle of all
+things can be supposed to consist of Atoms, but this is one of the
+perplexities in which monistic doctrines abound. That atoms _are_, so
+far as we know, the ultimate constituents of the Fundamental Reality,
+Professor Haeckel admits. It is true, he adds, that our knowledge of
+these ultimate elements is still far from satisfying, and he likewise
+anticipates that atoms will someday be discovered not really to be
+ultimate, but forms of something, more primal still.
+
+     Although [he says][174] Monism is on the one hand for us an
+     indispensable and fundamental conception in science, and although,
+     on the other hand, it strives to carry back all phenomena, without
+     exception, to the mechanism of the atom, we must nevertheless still
+     admit that as yet we are by no means in a position to form any
+     satisfactory conception of the exact nature of these atoms, and
+     their relation to the general space-filling, universal ether.
+     Chemistry long ago succeeded in reducing all the various natural
+     substances to combinations of a relatively small number of
+     elements; and the most recent advances of that science have made it
+     in the highest degree probable that these elements ... are
+     themselves in turn only different combinations of a varying number
+     of atoms of one single original element. But in all this we have
+     not as yet obtained any further light as to the real nature of
+     these original atoms or their primal energies.
+
+From which it is clear, that, while the considerations above presented
+lose none of their force, the Monistic system, by the avowal of its
+chief apostle, is based on complete ignorance concerning all which could
+furnish it with a foundation.
+
+But by far the most serious consideration yet remains. If, according to
+Monistic teaching men are but bubbles on the surface of reality, and are
+inevitably carried as it wills,--there is an end of all distinction
+between good and evil, right and wrong, merit and guilt. One man, or one
+line of conduct, is as good, or as bad, as another, being all equally
+the products of Evolution, and aspects of the great Monistic
+principle;--"Jack the Ripper," and Socrates, Messalina and Queen
+Victoria, Chief Justice Scroggs and Sir Thomas More, are none of them in
+any possible sense one whit better or worse than the others,--inasmuch
+as they all did but act as puppets actuated by one and the same
+original, playing its own part in them all.
+
+And in like manner as regards Truth. It must follow that a man's
+beliefs, like his actions, are as much beyond his own control as his
+stature or the colour of his hair. If Professor Haeckel calls Monism
+supreme wisdom, and I call it nonsense, we are equally right, for each
+is the mouthpiece of the same one all-embracing first-principle. What
+each believes is the only thing possible for him to believe, and, so far
+as he is concerned, is the only truth.
+
+But here comes in a perplexity. If such be the case, if there be no
+Free-will, and no possibility whatever of doing or believing anything
+but what is predetermined for us as a necessary part of our
+being,--where is the sense of all the strenuous efforts that are being
+made to convert the people to a belief which, according to its own
+principles, nothing in the world can make them accept, unless nothing in
+the world can prevent them from accepting it? What again is the meaning
+of organizations, such as we hear of, for giving ethical instruction to
+the young on a Monistic and determinist basis? What can be the possible
+sense of giving ethical lectures to young people, if it is really
+believed that the course of each is marked out for him more rigorously
+than the path of a city omnibus? "If" said Professor Paul Darnley in Mr.
+Mallock's clever satire,--"If we would be solemn, and high, and happy,
+and heroic, and saintly, we have but to strive and struggle to do what
+we cannot for an instant avoid doing,"--namely, conform to the laws of
+matter. If Monists were to limit their aspirations to this, their
+teaching would at least be intelligible. It ceases to be so, when they
+feel compelled to graft on their Monistic stock the Dualistic notions of
+Right and Wrong, Truth and Error. But, as Dr. Johnson said respecting
+Free-will, no one ever believes the arguments on the other side, however
+loudly he may profess to do so. And in the same way it is quite clear
+that no Monist can get himself really to accept Monism.[175]
+
+
+
+
+XIV
+
+ORGANIC EVOLUTION
+
+
+We have now considered the question of Evolution in the larger and more
+fundamental signification of the term to which, as we noted at starting,
+very different meanings are attached; and at this stage of our
+discussion it will be convenient to sum up the main conclusions at which
+we have arrived.
+
+It is, in the first place, unwarrantable to pretend that the discoveries
+of modern Science, brilliant and marvellous as they undoubtedly are,
+have thrown any light upon the origin of the Material Universe, or of
+its forces, or of the laws according to which its operations proceed.
+Nor has Science anything to tell as to the origin of life, of sensation,
+or of reason. Nothing as yet discovered by her, or which she can discern
+any prospect of discovering, adds aught to our knowledge regarding such
+points as these.
+
+Therefore, to say that the doctrine of Evolution as affirmed by Science,
+explains the existence of the world we know, is untrue and unscientific.
+
+Moreover, we have seen that, as a factor without which the Order of
+Nature is unintelligible, the First Cause to which her existence is
+owing must be possessed of Intelligence, determining her processes
+according to its purposes. Hence it follows that no system of philosophy
+satisfies our reason which would find the ultimate explanation of all
+things in the forces of matter themselves which it is the province of
+Science to investigate.
+
+On the other hand, in maintaining that Purpose must needs have acted, we
+do not assume to pronounce as to the manner of its action. To say that
+Purpose rules every detail in the making or development of the universe,
+does not by any means signify that it interferes at every step with the
+laws of Nature. Rather, these laws are the expression of Purpose,--its
+machinery to secure its designed result. Assuming, for instance, the
+primeval existence of Professor Huxley's cosmic nebula, so constituted
+that the actual world was bound naturally to issue from it, as does a
+chicken from an egg, or an oak from an acorn,--while we find it
+inconceivable that such a piece of mechanism should originate without an
+intelligence to design it,--we have no difficulty in supposing that
+intelligence to have exhibited itself once for all at the first
+beginning, and to have fashioned the actual world by shaping the causes
+or conditions by which it was to be produced, thus making everything,
+not directly and immediately but as St. Augustine held "_causaliter et
+seminaliter_."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+There remains for consideration Evolution in its narrower sense, in
+which its operations are restricted to organic nature, such Evolution
+being commonly, but incorrectly, identified with "Darwinism." Understood
+thus, "Evolution" signifies no more than that the various species of
+animals and plants have descended _genetically_ one from another,
+through a graduated series of intermediate forms which link them
+together. _Darwinism_ is one particular mode of explaining how such
+transformations may be accounted for,--namely, by what is known as
+"Natural Selection." The theory of Evolution, as thus concerned with
+Organic life in particular, is compendiously described as
+"Transformism," under which head Darwinism is evidently included.
+
+Transformism makes no pretence to account for the origin of life,
+whether animal or vegetable. Living things must exist before any
+question arises as to their transmutation. But, given the existence of
+life, Transformists undertake in the first place to show that Organic
+Evolution has, as a matter of fact, occurred, and is still in process of
+occurrence; and secondly, to exhibit the manner in which this process is
+actually worked out. As to the first point, all Transformists, whether
+Darwinians or others, are necessarily at one, for the fact of Evolution
+is equally essential for every explanation of its method. It is when
+they come to explain in what manner evolutionary transformations have
+been wrought that Transformists divide themselves into various schools,
+each of which relies upon some particular factor to furnish the required
+explanation. Thus besides Darwinians pure and simple, there are
+neo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, neo-Lamarckians, Weismannists, and others,
+ascribing the results to physiological selection, sexual-selection, or
+other forces, rather than natural selection. Of such systems, however,
+excepting only Darwinism, it will be unnecessary to speak in particular.
+The great fundamental question is whether genetic Evolution be really
+established as a fact,--which, as has been said, equally affects them
+all--and if it be advisable to treat more in detail of Darwinism, it is
+not because this does not hold good of it as of the rest--but because
+this particular system has obtained such a position, is so much in the
+mouths of men, and has been made the basis of so many and such
+far-reaching consequences, that it is impossible to pass it by.
+
+Much the same may indeed be said even of the assumed fact of Organic
+Evolution underlying all Transformist theories. This does not affect the
+fundamental problems with which we are concerned, and leaving untouched,
+as it does, the question of the origin of Life it makes even less
+pretence than the cosmic-nebular hypothesis just spoken of to trace the
+operations of Nature to their ultimate source. It might therefore appear
+superfluous to devote to it so much attention as, if treated at all, it
+must needs demand.
+
+But, whatever may thus appear from the point of view of strict logic, it
+is abundantly evident that in common estimation the assumed fact of
+Organic transformation is the foundation-stone of Evolutionary systems
+of every kind. And not unnaturally; for here at last we have something
+with which Science can deal, strictly according to her own methods. If
+she knows, and can know, nothing from actual observation concerning the
+first beginnings of matter, of the cosmic nebula, or of life, it is
+quite otherwise with the history of living things since they first
+appeared, and with the phenomena of life as it exists and is propagated.
+Here are questions which are strictly scientific, forming the
+subject-matter of Palaeontology and Biology, and these Sciences
+supplemented by others, such as Geology, Physical Geography, and
+Astronomy, furnish a mass of evidence bearing upon the subject of
+Organic Evolution. When therefore the great majority of men of Science,
+declare that the fact of genetic Transformism is established beyond the
+possibility of doubt, Evolutionists find themselves supplied with a
+plausible foothold on which to stand and rest their fulcrum, while, like
+Archimedes, they proceed to move the world.
+
+That men of Science generally thus agree, cannot be questioned, and
+although this agreement is by no means so universal as is popularly
+supposed, there is no doubt that were the question to be settled by
+enumeration of the authorities on either side, Transformism would win
+easily. It may also be freely acknowledged, that Transformism in general
+and Darwinism in particular are theories to which on _a priori_ grounds
+no exception need be taken, and that, so far at least as concerns their
+general scope, apart from the origin of Man, no one can reasonably
+start with a prepossession against them. Nay, we will go farther, and
+say that to our way of thinking it appears immensely more probable, that
+things should always have gone on as they go on now, by the operation of
+the same natural laws, and that specific forms should have been
+naturally produced, as individuals of a species are produced now, by
+generation,--rather than that not only repeated acts of specific
+creation, but any operations totally different from those we witness,
+should have occurred to interrupt, and as we should judge, to mar, the
+Law of Continuity.
+
+All this is true. But we are engaged on a scientific enquiry,--and if
+there be one principle more than another upon which Science insists, it
+is that we should prove all things, not by authority, but by
+evidence,--and that we should seek evidence, not in pre-conceived ideas
+as to what should be, but in observation of what is. Accordingly, while
+we are most ready to accept Transformism or Darwinism should we find
+solid reasons for doing so, we are bound, for the sake of Science, to
+demand unimpeachable proofs before subscribing to doctrines which are
+made responsible for so much.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Before proceeding farther it will be necessary to exhibit more in detail
+the exact character of the question we have to discuss.
+
+According to the celebrated "Formula" of Mr. Herbert Spencer--"Evolution
+is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;
+during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent
+homogeneity, to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and
+during which the contained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."
+It would be interesting to know what idea this definition conveys to
+many of those who are in the habit of quoting it, but, so far as organic
+Evolution is concerned, it must mean that whereas in the earlier and
+lower forms of life one organ performed many different functions in an
+imperfect manner, evolutionary development has gradually produced higher
+forms, in which each function has its special organ, by which it is more
+perfectly discharged. As an extreme instance of the former condition,
+the Hydra has but two organs, an outside which respires, and an inside
+which digests. If it be turned inside out these functions are reversed;
+the skin becoming the stomach, and the stomach the skin. Thus Evolution
+has been an ascending process from the lower to the higher, from the
+less to the more organized.
+
+Such, it must be added, has undoubtedly been the course of life. Amongst
+plants and animals alike, it began with lower and simpler forms, after
+which succeeded in due order others more developed and elaborately
+organized, the order in which they came upon the scene being much the
+same as that in which we should naturally arrange their specimens in a
+museum. Thus in the vegetable kingdom, first came such growths as
+sea-weeds and fungi, followed by ferns and club-mosses,--yews and
+pines,--and so through grasses, canes, and palms, to the highest group
+in which are included our forest trees and the bulk of our garden
+flowers. In like manner, the animal series,--to mention only leading
+groups of which evidence is found,--starting with almost structureless
+_Protozoa_, followed by such forms as starfish and sponges, worms,
+molluscs and crustaceans, has advanced to vertebrate creatures--fishes,
+amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,--and finally to man.
+
+Thus, in a quite intelligible sense, there has certainly been Evolution,
+or development,--that is to say, an orderly progression from lower types
+to higher, throughout the history of life on earth, from its
+commencement to the present time. But, this is not the point. Was such
+Evolution or development _genetic_? Was it wrought by descent with
+modification of form from form? _That_ is what we have to enquire. If
+this has not been so, there has been no Evolution in the sense intended
+by Evolutionists.
+
+According to their highest authority, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Evolution
+means "the production of all organic forms by the accumulation of
+modifications and of divergences by the addition of differences to
+differences."
+
+     Beyond all question [he adds] unlikenesses of structure gradually
+     arise among the members of successive generations. We find that
+     there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the
+     source of specific differences, a process which, though slow, does,
+     in time, produce changes--a process which to all appearance would
+     produce in millions of years any amount of changes.[176]
+
+The Transformist doctrine is, therefore, that one species of plants or
+animals, has in natural course grown out of another, through the
+aggregation of changes each exceedingly minute. Darwinism adds that the
+ruling principle of this process is Natural Selection. These are the
+points on which our enquiry turns, and we may conveniently commence with
+the second.
+
+
+
+
+XV
+
+DARWINISM
+
+
+It must first be observed that special consideration of Mr. Darwin's
+theory is rendered necessary even more imperatively on account of the
+claims advanced on his behalf by others, than of those to which he
+himself made any pretence. Without question the idea prevails almost
+universally, that he has furnished a scientific explanation of all
+organic phenomena through the operation of purely natural laws, and has
+thus rendered obsolete the idea that any power beyond Nature is required
+in order to account for the totality of things, or that there are any
+features of the world which indicate the operation of intelligent
+purpose.
+
+That such ideas should be widely prevalent amongst those who, having no
+special acquaintance with the subject, must depend for their knowledge
+on the popularizers of Science, is scarcely wonderful, for such
+teachers, with scarcely an exception, so declare, and occasionally real
+men of Science lend the weight of their authority to similar
+statements.
+
+It will be sufficient to cite Professor Haeckel, who writes thus:[177]
+
+     It seemed to Kant so impossible to explain the orderly processes in
+     the living organism without postulating super-natural final causes
+     (that is, a purposive creative force) that he said, "It is quite
+     certain that we cannot even satisfactorily understand, much less
+     elucidate, the nature of an organism and its internal faculty on
+     purely mechanical natural principles--it is so certain, indeed,
+     that we may confidently say: It is absurd for a man even to
+     conceive the idea that some day a Newton will arise who can explain
+     the origin of a single blade of grass by natural laws uncontrolled
+     by design. Such a hope is entirely forbidden us." Seventy years
+     afterwards this impossible Newton of the organic world appeared in
+     the person of Charles Darwin, and achieved the great task that Kant
+     had deemed impracticable.
+
+It is quite impossible to understand how such an assertion can be made
+by any one who knows the facts. Not only did Mr. Darwin never profess to
+have achieved any thing of the kind,--he repeatedly and distinctly
+disclaimed and repudiated any such supposition. Thus at the very end of
+his life (August 28, 1881) he wrote concerning one who had spoken of him
+like Professor Haeckel:
+
+     He implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most
+     monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks, the more one feels
+     the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. If we consider the whole
+     universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of
+     chance.[178] The whole question seems to me insoluble.
+
+But it should not be necessary to appeal to such disclaimers in order to
+show how absolutely unwarrantable are the pretensions made on Mr.
+Darwin's behalf to have solved, or to have attempted to solve, the
+fundamental problems which scientific research unceasingly suggests but
+has never been able to elucidate. It should be quite sufficient to
+examine his theory as it actually is, and although its scope is
+immensely less ambitious than has been represented, it still occupies,
+even in its genuine form, a position of sufficient importance to
+challenge investigation.
+
+Mr. Darwin's famous and epoch-making book, published in November, 1859,
+was entitled _On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,
+or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_. In it
+he undertook to show how from one species[179] of animals or plants,
+another, quite distinct from it, may be derived by means of processes
+which go on in Nature every day, through the accumulation of minute
+differences occurring in successive generations, and guided to their
+collective result by the force of "Natural Selection." As man, he
+argues, has by means of selection been able to produce in a brief space
+such astonishing varieties among his domestic animals and plants--as
+dogs, pigeons, roses or apples,--Nature, with the practically unlimited
+ages of geological time at her disposal, must be able to produce far
+greater and more enduring transformations, through the accumulation of
+minute differences, such as those upon which man has worked,--if only a
+factor can be found which amid the infinity of diverse and discordant
+variations spontaneously occurring, could, like the breeder or the
+gardener, pick out those leading to one particular result, and thus
+secure its accomplishment. Such a force Mr. Darwin conceives is found in
+"Natural Selection," which he thus explains.
+
+The tendency of organic life, whether vegetable or animal, being to
+propagate itself enormously,--and the life-sustaining capacity of the
+earth being limited,--it necessarily follows that only a fraction of the
+creatures which are born can survive to maturity, and that while those
+best fitted to live will live, those less well fitted will die. Thus,
+there is set up a constant struggle for existence, in which every
+advantage, however slight, must tell, so that those possessing such
+advantages in one generation will be the parents of the next. But in the
+course of propagation, the offspring never exactly reproduce the parent
+form, from which they vary, some in one way some in another, and as some
+of these variations cannot help being advantageous to their possessors
+in the struggle, we have here the required factor for the production of
+new forms. Any thus beneficially equipped, (although the variation, and
+consequently the advantage, must in each instance be exceedingly
+slight,) will have the chances on their side against their less favoured
+fellows, whom in the long run they will supplant. And as their
+offspring, or some of them, will carry the profitable variation somewhat
+further, the stream of life will thus be set in such a direction as will
+ultimately bring about what might at first appear impossible
+metamorphoses.
+
+Thus, to take a simple and favourite illustration,[180] winged insects
+inhabiting an island far from other land, are liable to be blown out to
+sea and drowned. It is in consequence, an advantage to them to have
+their power of flight curtailed, or taken away, and consequently in such
+situations their wings are generally found to be so reduced as to permit
+little or even nothing in the way of flying. Or to take an example of
+another kind,[181] the extraordinary length of neck which characterizes
+the giraffe enables it to browse on the higher branches of trees
+inaccessible to other vegetable feeders, and thus gives it an advantage
+over them in times of drought and scarcity of fodder. It can accordingly
+be easily understood, how its present structure has resulted from
+gradual elongations of the neck, each conferring on its possessor a
+slight advantage.
+
+The work attributed to Natural Selection in such instances, though no
+doubt highly important, is comparatively facile, and it would be
+difficult to say that it could not be accomplished. But Mr. Darwin
+ascribes to the same factor, not merely such modification of existing
+structures, but the creation of entirely new mechanisms for specific
+purposes. We have, for instance, heard his description of the eye and
+its manifold "inimitable contrivances:" yet all these, he persuaded
+himself, might be thus accounted for. The idea, he confessed,[182] seems
+at first sight preposterous; yet, though not without much
+difficulty,[183] he succeeded in convincing himself, that given the
+rudest and most rudimentary form of eye to start with--no more than a
+nerve sensitive to light but incapable of forming an image--Natural
+Selection might develop therefrom, through an infinite series of
+gradations the inconceivably complex machine that is now found in the
+higher vertebrates,[184] and the totally different but equally
+marvellous organs of sight possessed by insects, crustaceans, and other
+creatures.
+
+In like manner, Mr. Darwin contended, might the most complex and
+wonderful instincts be generated. As an example may be cited that by
+which the hive-bee constructs its combs--of which he thus speaks:[185]
+
+     He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a
+     comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic
+     admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically
+     solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper
+     shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least
+     possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has
+     been remarked that a skilful workman with fitting tools and
+     measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the
+     true form, though this is perfectly effected by a crowd of bees
+     working in a dark hive.[186] Granting whatever instincts you
+     please, it seems at first sight quite inconceivable how they can
+     make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when
+     they are correctly made. But the difficulty is not nearly so great
+     as it at first appears: all this beautiful work can be shown, I
+     think, to follow from a few simple instincts.
+
+He accordingly proceeds to argue, that beginning with circular cells,
+like those of Humble Bees, and progressing through an intermediate form,
+circular where free, but with flat partition walls where two or more
+cells touch one another, it is quite possible to suppose that Natural
+Selection has effected the whole improvement, those insects which
+accomplished any advance towards more scientific workmanship, and thus
+made materials go further, having been able to secure a livelihood
+better than their competitors.
+
+Such in brief outline is the Darwinian system, which undertakes to
+account for all the alleged facts of Organic Evolution by means of the
+above factor, variously described as "Natural Selection," or the
+"Survival of the fittest in the Struggle for Existence." It should be
+remembered, though it is constantly forgotten, that it is this
+particular theory as to the working-cause of evolutionary
+transformations which is the essence of Darwinism. Mr. Darwin did not
+originate the idea of genetic transformism, which is almost necessarily
+suggested by the systematic development of life-forms to which Geology
+bears witness. Consequently, long before he came on the scene, the
+doctrine of transformation had been propounded, especially by Lamarck,
+and if it had met with no general acceptance, this was chiefly because
+no force was indicated which seemed to offer a satisfactory account of
+the mode in which the required changes could have been wrought. Such a
+force Mr. Darwin's "Natural Selection" was widely taken to furnish, and
+his theory was eagerly welcomed and adopted by those who only required
+such a basis on which to ground beliefs to which they were already
+predisposed, and Darwinism thus obtained that pre-eminent position
+which it still retains, at least in popular estimation.
+
+Two special arguments may here be mentioned, which, although they really
+apply to all systems of Organic Evolution, have obtained a prescriptive
+right to be quoted particularly in favour of Darwinism, their bearing on
+which is easily seen.
+
+The first is based on the frequent occurrence of "rudimentary,"
+"fragmentary," or "vestigial" structures in animals and plants, which,
+although now seemingly useless, or even harmful, to their possessors,
+may be assumed to have been of service to their ancestors, but under
+changed conditions to have been thrown out of work by Natural Selection,
+and atrophied by disuse. Such are--the splint-bones of the horse,
+representing lost digits,--the rudimentary legs of some whales and
+serpents,--the _mammae_ and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the
+vegetable kingdom,--the aborted pistil in male florets of some
+_compositae_,--the useless corolla of certain wind-fertilized flowers,
+as _plantago_, and indeed the whole floral apparatus of plants which,
+like Wordsworth's pet the Lesser Celandine,[187] seldom ripen their
+seeds, but depend on other methods of propagation. The other fact cited
+on behalf of Darwinism is unquestionably very striking. In the course of
+their embryonic development, and even in the initial stages of their
+life after birth, higher animals pass through various phases in which
+they exhibit the characteristics of lower forms. Thus all life starts
+from a cell, in which there is nothing to shew whether it is ever to be
+anything more than a cell, or is to evolve a plant or animal,--nor, in
+this latter case, what sort of animal it is to be--a mollusc, for
+instance, a frog, or a mammal. At a later stage[188] it is impossible to
+distinguish the embryos of lizards, birds, and mammals except by size.
+Even the human fetus at an early period bears vestiges of gill-clefts or
+arches, pointing to an aquatic existence. When the extremities come to
+be developed,[189] "The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet
+of birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the
+same fundamental form." The young of flat-fish such as soles and
+turbots, when they leave the egg are not flat, but shaped like ordinary
+fish, and they wear their eyes in the normal fashion, one on each side
+of their head, not both on the same side like their parents--whose form
+however they presently by degrees assume. Young lions and black birds
+are spotted, showing their affinity respectively to panthers and
+thrushes--and so on in numberless instances. All such features, it is
+assumed, indicate the _phylogeny_ of each animal, or the history of the
+race to which it belongs. As Professor Milnes Marshall succinctly put
+the matter:[190]
+
+     The phases through which an animal passes in its progress from the
+     egg to the adult are no accidental freaks, no mere matters of
+     developmental convenience, but represent more or less closely ...
+     the successive ancestral stages through which the present condition
+     has been acquired. Evolution tells us that each animal has had a
+     pedigree in the past. Embryology reveals to us this ancestry,
+     because every animal in its own development repeats this history,
+     climbs up its own genealogical tree.
+
+Such are not by any means the only instances in which the Darwinist can
+appeal to Nature for facts with which his theory well agrees, and which
+therefore so far furnish a persuasive argument in its favour; but these
+are perhaps the chief ones, and the best known, and may serve as
+representative of their class which it is impossible for us to examine
+in detail.
+
+It now remains to enquire how far, from the point of view of Science,
+with which alone we are concerned, the Darwinian hypothesis can make
+good its claim to our acceptance. When we proceed accordingly to examine
+the grounds upon which it rests, it must be confessed that as we do so
+it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how such a theory has
+been able to obtain such wide acceptance, especially on the ground that
+scientific evidence is in its favour.
+
+On the very threshold of any such enquiry lies a difficulty the gravity
+of which seems to be strangely overlooked. Darwinism by its own
+confession knows nothing of Origins, not even of the Origin of Species
+itself. There must be life already existing before Natural Selection has
+anything to select; there must be eyes and honey-cells of some kind,
+before they can be improved; there must be Species, before one can be
+transformed into another. Is it not evident, however, that the cause--of
+whatever kind it may be--which brought any of these into being, must
+have _something_,--not to say everything,--to do with the capacities and
+potentialities by which its future history is conditioned? But this
+supreme and vital factor Mr. Darwin entirely eliminates from his
+calculation. In his system, the initiating force has no more to do with
+the subsequent career of its productions, than has the gas which lifts a
+balloon with the direction in which it travels. It is not, on his
+theory, as the impulse which, besides raising from earth an arrow or
+rifle bullet, directs it to a goal, but, on the contrary, an organism
+once launched on its course is left to be driven hither and thither and
+twisted into this form and that, as clouds are by the wind. For the
+variations through which transformations are wrought, Darwin could find
+no better epithet than "fortuitous," and it is laid down by his
+staunchest disciples that if such variations be predetermined towards
+certain results, there is an end of Darwinism.
+
+It is not easy to understand how any theory can be deemed satisfactory
+which thus ignores the initial force, of whose existence and potency we
+have far clearer evidence than of any other.
+
+When we turn from its omissions to study Darwinism as it is, obviously,
+in the first place, still, more than forty years since it was given to
+the world, it remains only an hypothesis, based not upon observation or
+experiment but speculation. In no single instance, past or contemporary,
+is one species known to have originated from another. The fact upon
+which Mr. Darwin primarily relies is that of variation. Undoubtedly
+amongst both plants and animals the offspring are not mere slavish
+reproductions of their parents, as if cast in the same mould, but
+exhibit individual differences, working upon which in domesticated
+instances, man can by selection produce wonderful varieties, as has
+already been admitted. But, as M. de Quatrefages says,[191] this tells
+us no more than that species admit of variation; it does not prove that
+they are capable of transformation, which is the whole point. Certainly,
+such transformation has never within our knowledge been effected. No
+breeder or fancier has succeeded, or can hope to succeed, in producing a
+new species. Moreover, as was pointed out by a critic whose ability Mr.
+Darwin himself candidly acknowledged,[192] the range of variability as
+we find it in any species is strictly limited, and although at first it
+is easy,--in the case of some few animals or plants,--to make great
+changes in particular directions, by selective breeding, it becomes more
+and more difficult as we proceed to continue in the same line. If, for
+instance, in the case of pigeons, a bird can be produced in six years
+with head and beak only one-half the size of those whence the process
+started, are we to say that in twelve years their bulk will be reduced
+to a quarter, and in twenty-four to an eighth? No one could suppose
+anything so absurd. Mr. Darwin would answer, that he relies upon the
+vast periods of geologic time to produce alterations such as we cannot
+possibly attempt within the few years at our disposal. But, it is
+replied, no length of time will avail anything for such a purpose,
+unless there be some force to produce variations in the required
+direction, to the required extent. Such a force is not proved to
+exist--all the evidence is against it. Where art is most practised in
+improvement of breeds, or the obtaining of any peculiarities--as with
+the speed of racehorses, the size of toy-terriers, or the "points" of
+prize cattle, it becomes most strikingly apparent that we have reached a
+limit beyond which species will not vary. And until such a cause as we
+require is fully proved to exist, its supposed effects cannot be made
+the basis of scientific argument.
+
+     A given animal or plant, [says the Reviewer] appears to be
+     contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation; one individual
+     lies near one portion of the surface, another individual near
+     another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre. Any
+     individual may produce descendants varying in any direction, but is
+     more likely to produce descendants varying towards the centre of
+     the sphere, and the variations in that direction will be greater in
+     amount than the variations towards the surface. Thus a set of
+     racers of equal merit indiscriminately breeding will produce more
+     colts and foals of inferior than of superior breed, and the falling
+     off of the degenerate will be greater than the improvement of the
+     select (p. 282).
+
+Similarly M. Blanchard declares:[193]
+
+     All investigation and observation make it clear that, while the
+     variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in
+     very different degrees, yet in its most astonishing manifestations
+     it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass.
+
+And the facts of nature, as we know them, far from favouring the
+instability of species, exhibit a tenacity of form compelling us to
+treat them as practically immutable. Thus, as Mr. Carruthers points
+out,[194] in the notoriously variable genus _Salix_, or willow-tribe,
+which seems to be actively advancing towards a multiplication of its
+subdivisions, sub-genera, species, varieties, and hybrid forms,--one
+species is found, _S. polaris_, dating from before the Glacial Epoch,
+which has been driven from England and other lands, by climatic changes,
+to within the Arctic circle of both Hemispheres,--yet amid this stress
+of circumstances has preserved its specific identity, down even to the
+casual variations, which might be supposed to furnish the
+starting-points for new developments. Yet in this tribe, if anywhere,
+evidence of specific evolution might be looked for.[195]
+
+Other instances seem to show that even under new and trying conditions
+those creatures survive best which keep closest to the central family
+type, not those which diverge in any direction. Thus, of European
+sparrows introduced in America, Mr. Bumpus writes:[196]
+
+     Natural Selection is most destructive of those birds which have
+     departed most from the ideal type, and its activity raises the
+     general standard by favouring those birds which approach the
+     structural ideal.
+
+Variation supplies the raw material upon which Natural Selection is
+supposed to work. When we turn to examine the process by which its
+results should be produced, we find, quite apart from the above
+difficulties, a crop of others still more formidable.
+
+It must be remembered, that the variations on which Natural Selection
+must work are in each instance extremely minute, well-nigh
+infinitesimal. Mr. Darwin was as strongly opposed to the idea of Nature
+making sudden bounds, as to that of a predetermined course of
+development. But, he argued, an extra chance of living, however slight,
+must necessarily tell in the long run, the theory of probabilities
+giving results as certain as any others in mathematics, and, according
+to these, we may confidently say that, given sufficient time, the
+favoured individuals would infallibly distance their competitors.
+
+The impressiveness of such an argument depends upon its seemingly
+mathematical character, which is however wholly fallacious, for the
+probabilities are all the other way. It is perfectly true that a
+beneficial variation however slight will confer on its happy possessor a
+corresponding advantage in the struggle for life, as compared with each
+_individual_ of the non-favoured herd, but, as to that herd
+collectively, the chances would, on the contrary, ensure that _some_ of
+its members should outlive the favoured one. Let us even imagine the
+advantage of the latter to be very great, great enough to double his
+chances, so that the odds on his surviving each of his fellows will be
+two to one. Yet if there be a dozen of them to contend with, the odds
+will be six to one _against_ his surviving the lot. And what of the
+actual case of minutest benefits conferred by variation? In order to
+give them even an equal chance of survival, the numbers of those
+possessing such advantages must be large in proportion as the advantages
+themselves are small. Thus, if a variation increases the chance of life
+by one-thousandth part, so that the odds on its possessor are 1001,
+against 1000 on each non-possessor, yet unless the number of possessors
+be to that of non-possessors as 1,000 to 1,001, their collective chances
+will not even be equal. As it is quite absurd to suppose that casual
+variations could ever occur in such wholesale fashion, how can it be
+supposed that, were Natural Selection the only factor operating, minute
+advantages could be accumulated by variation even in the simplest cases?
+
+But it is also hard to suppose that in any actual case is the matter so
+simple as it appears to our limited comprehension. To take for instance
+the above example of the giraffe. It is very well to have a neck that
+will reach high-branches of a tree,--but this is not everything. For the
+mere prolongation of life, much else is required, fleet limbs to
+distance lions, and keen senses, sight, hearing, and smell, to give
+warning of the approach of human or other hunters, to say nothing of the
+extra strengthening of muscles and bones which increased size and weight
+demands. Unless, however, improvements in all these respects happened
+casually to concur in the same individual, which could scarcely happen,
+it is clear that each would militate against the others, for the
+survival of an individual beneficially developed in one respect, would
+tend to the extinction of other beneficial developments, possessed by
+individuals whom he overcame in the struggle for life.
+
+Even the case of the insular insects is by no means so plain as might at
+first sight appear. There can be no doubt that wings are of _some_
+advantage, or on no system could they be supposed to exist. Nor do their
+advantages cease because disadvantages outweigh them. If some insects
+are blown out to sea when flying, others will doubtless perish in one
+way or another because they cannot fly. It may even be that those which
+can fly _best_ will survive, as being able to make head against a breeze
+which overpowers others. Natural Selection will thus have many arrows in
+its quiver, some of which must reach the wrong objects.
+
+Still more clearly does this appear in the case of complex structures in
+which, if they were produced as Mr. Darwin supposes, variation must have
+hit simultaneously upon independent contrivances, without each of which
+all the others would be useless and confer no benefit at all. In the
+eye, for example, to mention but one or two of innumerable similar
+points, it would be of no avail to have a retina, even such as has been
+described, without a lens to throw an image upon it, set just at the
+proper distance, and provided with muscles to alter its shape according
+to the distance of the object. How can Natural Selection be even
+conceived to have set to work on such a task as this?
+
+It is still more fundamental to observe that, according to Mr. Darwin's
+own showing, Natural Selection is purely negative in its action. "If it
+does select, it selects for death and not for life."[197] It can
+originate nothing, but only destroy. All that it does for favoured races
+is to spare them while it sweeps away others, and the sole benefit they
+derive from it is to have more ample resources upon which to draw. But
+as for anything they possess in the way of structure or character, they
+must derive it entirely from themselves--Natural Selection can no more
+confer it, than the labourer who weeds a garden bed makes the flowers
+that grow there. Let it be imagined that the first human beings on
+earth, any number of thousand years ago, planted a garden, and
+determined to produce a rose, by eliminating every plant that did not
+show some promise of progress rose-wards. Let the gardeners have been
+endowed with acumen sufficient to detect every symptom of such a
+tendency, and let their operations have been carried on without
+interruption to this day,--it is obvious that if roses had resulted, it
+could only be because among the plants they allowed to remain there
+existed a rose-making quality of some kind, to which, and not to
+anything done by human art or skill, the result was due. It would
+likewise have to be supposed that there were infinite other
+potentialities latent in the original plants, as of evolving thistles,
+shamrocks, or leeks--all equally awaiting their opportunity. Selective
+action could effectually put such competitors out of the way; but in the
+way of developing a race it could but leave it entirely to itself.
+Precisely similar is the part played by Natural Selection, except that
+it must needs play it immensely more slowly,--and if no one can fancy
+that human agency could by any possibility grow roses unless from some
+stock predetermined to grow into a rose and nothing else, what grounds
+have we that can be called scientific for attributing to a blind
+struggle for life an incomparably greater potency? Nor does it avail to
+quote the immense extent of time which may be supposed to have been
+available. No more than Natural Selection has time by itself any
+creative power. We know on the contrary by experience, that when things
+are not controlled by some principle of order, the lapse of time serves
+only to make confusion worse confounded.
+
+Another consideration of prime importance is too frequently ignored. On
+Darwinian principles, each step in any development can be made, not
+because it leads to an advantageous result in the future, but only
+because it is itself advantageous. At each stage favoured individuals
+survive others because they are favoured here and now, not because, when
+the development they promote shall be completed, their remote
+descendants will be favoured. Hence it must, for instance, be possible
+to suppose, that all the intermediate forms between two extremes,
+whereof one is supposed to have originated the other, were, each in its
+day, so beneficial as to preserve their possessors at the expense of
+non-possessors. But can this possibly be even imagined?
+
+To take one example. We have heard, speaking of embryology, that the
+feet of lizards and the wings and feet of birds arise from the same
+fundamental form of limb, whence it is argued that birds and lizards are
+alike descended from a common sauroid, or lizard-like, ancestor, whose
+limbs in the case of the former class have developed into wings and into
+feet of a totally new type,--while scales were developing into feathers,
+and innumerable alterations of internal structure were simultaneously in
+progress. But if so, to confine our attention to one particular, it
+must be true that each of the innumerable minute gradations between the
+fore-limb of a lizard and the wing of a bird, was in its turn the best
+kind of member for a creature to possess, giving him a distinct
+advantage in the struggle for existence. Nothing, however, appears
+plainer than that this could not possibly have been the case. The limb
+shaping towards a wing would be a very clumsy and inefficient leg long
+before it got to the point at which it became of the slightest use for
+purposes of flight, that is to say before its alteration was accompanied
+by any utility whatever. We can neither imagine that creatures furnished
+with limbs of such intermediate forms could have been otherwise than
+hopelessly handicapped by them, nor do we find anywhere in the rocks any
+trace whatever of the innumerable series of modifications which would be
+needed to link by imperceptible gradations legs and wings together.
+
+It only serves to make the matter less intelligible, that there _are_
+found in Secondary strata some few relics of birds with decidedly
+saurian characteristics,[198] as the _Hesperornis_ and _Ichthyornis_ in
+the Chalk, and the _Archaeopteryx_, most ancient of fowls, lower still,
+in the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the
+_Archaeopteryx_ in addition has decidedly reptilian characters connected
+with its wings and tail. But none of them throw the slightest light upon
+the point we are now considering. In the case of all, the problem of
+flight has been completely solved. Their wings are no rudimentary
+structures half way between legs and wings, but as finished productions
+as those of to-day. As Professor Huxley acknowledges, if the skeletons
+of _Hesperornis_ and _Icthyornis_ had been found without their skulls,
+they would probably have been classed without more ado amongst existing
+birds. The latter "has, [he tells us,] strong wings, and no doubt
+possessed corresponding powers of flight." The wings of _Hesperornis_,
+he says, resemble those of our divers and grebes, and were probably
+used, like theirs, chiefly for swimming.[199] As for the _Archaeopteryx_,
+its reptilian features notwithstanding, it is a perfectly-appointed
+bird. As Sir Richard Owen testifies,[200] its wing, despite the
+peculiarities mentioned, is completely developed as to all essentials.
+Nor does even this member furnish the creature with its most bird-like
+characteristics,--but the keeled breast-bone, so intimately connected
+with the requirements of flight,--and, still more markedly, the feet.
+Professor Huxley writes: "The feet are not only altogether bird-like,
+but have the special character of the feet of perching birds; while the
+body had a clothing of true feathers."
+
+Thus, to whatever these Saurian birds may testify,--and the extreme
+importance of their evidence none will question--they no more serve to
+bridge the gulf between reptiles and birds, than a group of volcanic
+islets like the Azores bridges the Atlantic, for they supply no vestige
+of a continuous way from one term to the other. Rather, they do but
+enhance the mystery of the transformation, to the manner of which,
+despite their composite features, they furnish no clue.
+
+All such difficulties are enormously aggravated by a consideration
+which, obvious as it is, seems seldom to be considered. The arguments we
+commonly hear appear to imply that _one_ parent is sufficient to secure
+the transmission of a beneficial variation to the next generation. But,
+of course, the parent requires a mate, and unless this mate has chanced
+to hit on the same line of variation, it cannot be supposed that it will
+be transmitted. Seeing, however, the exceeding minuteness of these
+variations in each instance, they can avail nothing to bring together
+the right mates to perpetuate them. Two reptiles, for instance, are not
+the more likely to pair because their fore limbs have taken the first
+faint and distant step towards becoming wings, while in the vegetable
+kingdom, notwithstanding Erasmus Darwin's _Loves of the Plants_, the
+idea of any choice of partners is still more grotesque. The allotment of
+mates must therefore be left to Chance; and the results will follow the
+ordinary laws of probability. Accordingly, if we suppose so large a
+proportion as five per cent., or one in twenty, of any species to
+possess an advantageous variation,--only one in twenty of the
+individuals thus favoured will secure a similarly favoured mate,--for
+each will have nineteen wrong selections offered to him or her, for one
+right one. Only one pair in four hundred will therefore transmit the
+variation to five per cent. of _their_ offspring, or one in eight
+thousand of the species, and of these only one pair in
+a-hundred-and-sixty-thousand will make an advantageous match. Such is
+the inevitable consequence of leaving any definite result to Chance: and
+here it is that Natural Selection is found to betray the most fatal of
+all its deficiencies; for, whatever its advocates may say, it is Chance
+and Chance alone upon which it relies. Just because man can and does
+select the proper mates, is he able to produce by breeding the results
+to which Mr. Darwin appeals as evidence, that Nature having no such
+power of selection, must be able to produce results of which man cannot
+even dream.[201]
+
+Natural Selection is in truth no selection at all, that is just its weak
+point, which the title conferred upon it serves to hide. What are called
+its products owe no more to it than Wellington owed his generalship to
+the bullets which did not hit him at Seringapatam. If they are not
+determined to a particular development they can attain it only by
+Chance.
+
+Of Chance, enough has already been said. It is, however, worth our
+while to observe how constantly to the last Mr. Darwin was haunted by
+the consciousness that this was in reality the factor upon which his
+system must depend, and that it could not possibly account for much that
+he came across in nature. If, as he confessed, the sight of a peacock's
+tail-feather made him sick, it was just because its elaborate beauty, to
+which no commensurate advantage can be supposed to attach, forbade the
+notion that his theory could account for it. So, of another still more
+marvellous instance in which Nature exhibits artistic power, namely the
+ball-and-socket ornament on the wings of the Argus pheasant, he
+writes:[202]
+
+     No one, I presume, will attribute this shading, which has excited
+     the admiration of many experienced artists, to chance--to the
+     fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring matter. That these
+     ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many
+     successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to
+     produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one
+     of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of
+     chance daubs of paints made by a long succession of young artists,
+     not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+1. Basal portion of secondary wing-feather; nearest body, shewing first
+rudiment of "ocelli."
+
+2. Portion of secondary wing-feather near body, shewing "elliptic"
+ornaments.
+
+3. Part of secondary wing-feather, shewing developed "ocelli."
+
+Feathers from wing of Argus Pheasant, from Darwin's _Descent of Man_.]
+
+Nevertheless, Mr. Darwin proceeds to argue at considerable length that
+an explanation consistent with his theory is favoured by the occurrence
+on the same wings of designs exhibiting every stage of gradation from a
+mere spot to the finished ball-and-socket _ocellus_; in the same way as
+the tail feathers of a peacock advance from a mere sketch to the
+completed design. It is not easy, however, to understand in what way
+this is supposed to solve the difficulty and not vastly to increase it.
+That a finished artistic effect should be fortuitously produced at all
+would be incredible enough. That it should be worked up by Chance
+through a series of processes, each doing something towards its
+completion, is surely not less, but far more inconceivable.
+
+In such a mode of explanation, however, is exemplified a feature which
+must not be forgotten in discussing Darwinism,--namely the fatal
+facility with which seeming arguments can be procured on its behalf. As
+Mr. Mivart well remarks:[203] "The Darwinian theory has the great
+advantage of only needing for its support the suggestion of some
+possible utility, actual or ancestral, in each case--no difficult task
+for an ingenious, patient, and accomplished thinker." And our _North
+British_ Reviewer makes a similar comment: "The believer who is at
+liberty to invent any imaginary circumstances, will very generally be
+able to conceive some series of transmutations answering his wants."
+
+Or if, as in the above instance of the Argus' eyes, a series is actually
+found, it is even less difficult to take for granted that it can have
+but one significance; while such assumptions are too frequently
+accepted without hesitation or demur, although it would be no easy task
+to show that they rest upon any solid grounds. When, in addition, either
+Mr. Darwin himself or some of his leading partisans has declared that
+some unverified process has undoubtedly occurred, or that they see no
+reason to doubt its occurrence, or that nothing which we know precludes
+its possibility,--it appears to be widely supposed that something
+substantial is thereby added to the scientific evidence, and that the
+suppositions thus sanctioned may even rank as facts. But however such a
+method may avail to secure acceptance for a doctrine, it does nothing
+for its scientific value. Such a style, as Mr. Mivart says,[204] is
+calculated to impress only minds too easily dominated, and not prepared
+by special studies accurately to weigh the evidence put before them.
+
+Illustrations of this strange method of procedure are furnished in
+connexion with various points already mentioned. Thus, as we have seen,
+Mr. Darwin attempts to explain the origin of rational speech, by the
+conscious utterance of a significant sound by an unusually wise ape-like
+creature. In favour of this very large suggestion, Mr. Darwin has
+nothing more substantial to say[205] than that "it does not appear
+altogether incredible," which does not appear to take us very far.[206]
+Yet I have seen this described as an "idyllic scene" shedding an
+entirely new light on the subject. So again in regard of the evolution
+of the eye.[207] Having summarily enumerated the various stages of
+development exhibited by this organ as actually existing in various
+animals, Mr. Darwin goes on to say that when we remember how small the
+number of living forms must be in comparison with extinct, and the other
+gradations that may consequently have existed, "the difficulty ceases to
+be very great" in believing that Natural Selection has connected the
+most rudimentary with the perfect structure. Similarly, as to the
+cell-making instinct of the bee,[208] having postulated four several
+suppositions for which evidence is not forthcoming, he concludes: "By
+such modification of instincts ... I believe that the hive bee has
+acquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural
+powers."[209] Similar examples might be multiplied indefinitely.
+
+Not unfrequently the tone of such utterances is more imperious. Thus, of
+the descent of Man from some animal ancestor Mr. Darwin pronounces[210]
+"The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken," and
+again[211] "the possession of exalted mental powers is no insuperable
+objection to this conclusion" ... "It is only [p. 32] our natural
+prejudice which leads us to demur to this conclusion." He even goes so
+far as to declare that his view is forced upon every man who is not
+content to assume the mental attitude of a savage.[212]
+
+Argumentation of this character, which he finds common with Darwin to
+other Evolutionists, is judged by de Quatrefages to be one of the
+weakest and most misleading features of their systems.
+
+     Personal conviction [he writes],[213] mere possibility, are offered
+     as proofs, or at least as arguments in favour of the theory. Can we
+     admit their validity? Obviously not. The human mind can conceive
+     many things: is that a reason for accepting them all?... Obviously
+     more serious proofs are needed. After all, save where a
+     contradiction is involved, everything is _possible_.... If
+     adopting, under the shadow of Oken's great name, his principle of
+     the repetition of phenomena, a naturalist should maintain that each
+     of the planets has its own Europe, its England, and its Darwin
+     expounding to the Jovians and Saturnians the origin of species, I
+     do not quite see how one would set about showing him that he was
+     wrong. Unquestionably the thing is _possible_. Are we to draw the
+     conclusion that it is a fact?
+
+Again,[214] the same distinguished naturalist, having quoted Darwin's
+very elaborate explanation of a difficulty, remarks:
+     We see how with Darwin, as with his precursors, one hypothesis
+     necessitates another. But can he, at least, by means of these
+     subsidiary theories, these comparisons, these metaphors, account
+     for all the facts? No, he himself honestly confesses more than once
+     that he cannot. It is true that he adds "I am convinced that the
+     objections have little weight, and the difficulties are not
+     insoluble." But is this conviction of his a proof, or even an
+     argument?
+
+M. Blanchard likewise comments vigorously on this mode of argumentation.
+Speaking of the Mole and Darwin's explanation of its blindness, namely
+that having taken to living under-ground it lost its eyes through
+disuse--which he considers a most preposterous supposition,--M Blanchard
+continues:[215]
+
+     The realms of fancy are boundless; but the observer who is
+     concerned with realities can only have recourse to the facts of
+     science. Fossil remains discovered in very ancient strata show that
+     the underground animal of present times does not differ from his
+     geological counterpart. The Mole belongs to a very peculiar type,
+     and has no nearer European relatives than the Hedgehog and the
+     Shrew. Can we imagine a common ancestor of Shrews, Hedgehogs, and
+     Moles? On this point Mr. Darwin expresses no opinion,--which should
+     not be, for when confronted by forms clearly differentiated, he is
+     wont to extricate himself from difficulties with matchless
+     facility. The intermediate links, he will say, were doubtless less
+     fitted to live than were the others, and so have disappeared. After
+     _that_ the Evolutionists consider any one quite out of date who
+     does not consider himself entirely satisfied with so felicitous an
+     explanation.
+
+M. de Quatrefages denounces another fatal defect often observable in the
+method of proof.
+
+     Mr. Darwin frequently complains that our actual knowledge is
+     incomplete. But instead of discovering in our lack of precise and
+     extensive information a motive for caution, he appears to derive
+     from it only greater daring. Doctrines based on the instability of
+     species have often been combated by geologists and palaeontologists.
+     In reply to their objections Darwin devotes a whole chapter to
+     shewing the imperfection of the geological record. "For my part,"
+     he concludes, "I look at the geological record as a history of the
+     world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect; of this
+     history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or
+     three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short
+     chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a
+     few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less
+     different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of
+     life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which
+     falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the
+     difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even
+     disappear."
+
+     On my part [continues M. de Quatrefages] I will ask whether such a
+     conclusion is the correct one. No doubt, Darwin is right in
+     refusing to certain naturalists the right to dogmatize on the
+     strength of uncompleted studies, or scanty and isolated
+     observations. Is he therefore entitled to allege as proofs on his
+     own behalf the very gaps of science, appealing to the lost volumes
+     and leaves of Nature's chronicle? Clearly not. But the slightest
+     reflection suffices to recognize that this appeal to the unknown,
+     so frankly evidenced in the above passage, lies at the root of all
+     argumentation analogous to that which I have tried to
+     describe--that of Maillet, Lamarck, and Geoffroy,[216] as well as
+     Darwin. Only the unknown, in sooth, can open the boundless region
+     of speculation, where the possible replaces the actual, and where,
+     despite the widest knowledge and the soundest intelligence, one
+     comes as by a fatality to find a conclusive proof on one's own
+     side, precisely in that of which we profess to know nothing.
+
+So again, speaking of a certain conclusion of Professor Haeckel's
+concerning the embryology of lemurs, which MM. Grandidier and Alphonse
+Edwards afterwards proved experimentally to be altogether erroneous, de
+Quatrefages writes:[217]
+
+     Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book
+     preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea
+     itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the
+     majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin
+     set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody
+     knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of knowledge,
+     and draw arguments from their very ignorance.
+
+In like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once.
+Thus:[218]
+
+     The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult
+     of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds,
+     tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of
+     species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable
+     barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be
+     no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However
+     an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced
+     somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have
+     spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results.
+
+And again:[219]
+
+     We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous
+     scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as
+     to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as
+     follows:--"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is
+     possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those
+     hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable." There is
+     little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually _have
+     been_.
+
+In no respect, moreover, have Darwin's followers more closely imitated
+their master than in the construction of such hypotheses, which would
+appear to constitute in the eyes of many the most important work of
+Science. Attention has very largely been diverted from Nature as
+actually existing, which seems to be studied more for the light it can
+be supposed to throw upon evolutionary history, than simply for itself,
+and it seems to be thought that to imagine the mode of an evolutionary
+process is equivalent to establishing the facts which that process
+supposes. By this method lengthy and learned papers are written
+concerning the transformation of one species into another, which in
+reality do no more than describe in minute detail all the changes which
+must have taken place, _if_ the said transformation really occurred.
+That Science is thus benefited, is not the opinion of some at least who
+are well entitled to speak on her behalf, for as the President of the
+Linnean Society recently observed,[220] as one grows older, it becomes
+more and more apparent that facts alone are of any serious interest, and
+that speculations however ingenious and attractive are best left to the
+constructive and destructive energies of the young. So too, a few years
+ago, the President of the Microscopical Society complained that interest
+in living creatures is largely supplanted by dead ones.[221]
+
+     We read much [he said] of the animal's organs: we see plates
+     showing that its bristles have been counted, and its muscular
+     fibres traced to the last thread; we have the structure of its
+     tissues analyzed to their very elements; we have long discussions
+     on its title to rank with this group or that; and sometimes even
+     disquisitions on the probable form and habits of some extremely
+     remote, but quite hypothetical, ancestor, who is made to degrade in
+     this way, or to advance in that, or who is credited with one organ
+     or deprived of another, just as the ever-varying necessities of a
+     desperate hypothesis require....
+
+There is another aspect of the question which must by no means be
+overlooked. It has to be assumed that Natural Selection, or the survival
+of the fittest in the struggle for existence, necessarily tends to the
+benefit of the _race_ and moreover to its farther development on the
+upward grade, towards a more perfect and more specialized
+organization;--in Mr. Herbert Spencer's words, to progression from a
+relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a relatively definite,
+coherent heterogeneity. But here many questions occur.
+
+In the first place, a consideration presents itself, which appears to
+furnish the most formidable of all difficulties in the way of Mr.
+Darwin's hypothesis. How can this struggle for existence be supposed to
+have any tendency to promote organic development to ever higher and more
+perfect types, in the orderly sequence which has in fact occurred? The
+"Survival of the fittest" means only the survival _of the fittest to
+survive_,--of such as can find means of living where others cannot.
+Unless it can be shown that increased complexity of organization
+necessarily brings with it such increased vitality, Natural Selection
+can do nothing for organic development. If the mere power of living be
+the only factor in the process, as on Mr. Darwin's showing it is, a man
+is only a more complicated and delicate machine for securing the same
+object which can equally well, or better, be attained by a mole, a
+cockroach, or a microbe. And who will say that, so far as this
+particular end is concerned, he is better equipped than creatures which
+all the resources of civilization are powerless to exterminate?
+
+That practical advantage in the struggle for existence must necessarily
+accompany increased specialization of organs, and thus produce a
+"higher" organization, was a prime point of Mr. Darwin's argument,
+though at the same time he found himself compelled to encumber it with
+qualifications which go very far to neutralize its force; for he had to
+explain the obvious fact that so many creatures which represent the
+lowest and least specialized forms of life, have survived down to our
+own time. Thus he writes:[222]
+
+     The degree of differentiation and specialization of the parts in
+     organic beings, when arrived at maturity, is the best standard, as
+     yet suggested, of their degree of perfection or highness. As the
+     specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural
+     selection will tend to render the organization of each being more
+     specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but that it
+     may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures
+     fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even
+     degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded
+     beings better fitted for their new walks of life.
+
+     By this fundamental test of victory in the battle of life, as well
+     as by the standard of the specialization of organs, modern forms
+     ought, on the theory of Natural Selection, to stand higher than
+     ancient forms. Is this the case? A large number of palaeontologists
+     would answer in the affirmative; and it seems that this answer must
+     be admitted as true, though difficult of proof.
+
+That is to say, Natural Selection is just as ready to degrade as to
+elevate a creature, according to the actual requirements of the
+circumstances in which it is placed, and how far progress has been the
+rule, rather than stability or retrogression, is a question for
+geological history to determine. This we shall have to consider in our
+next chapter.
+
+It is likewise obvious that so far as the mere struggle for existence is
+concerned, a species each of whose individual members is but poorly
+furnished, may nevertheless flourish unimpaired on the mere strength of
+its fecundity. It is thus, says M. Blanchard,[223] that the lower forms
+of life continue to hold their own despite the enormous ravages to which
+they are subject. The herring, for example, affords food to all the
+fowls of the air and fish of the sea, over and above the myriads
+annually requisitioned by man. Yet its hosts show no sign of being
+exterminated or even reduced. Much the same is the case of the cod; but
+a tribe one individual of which has been known to produce nine million
+eggs does not require much in the way of coherent heterogeneity to
+ensure its survival.
+
+Thus it appears that of itself Darwinism affords no explanation whatever
+of the regular progression of life forms from lower to higher, to which
+the records of Nature bear witness, and which is the one solid fact
+suggesting the idea of Evolution.
+
+Such are some of the reasons which, on purely rational grounds, appear
+amply to justify those who decline to pledge their faith to Darwinism,
+in spite of the popularity it enjoys. But what is to be said of the
+phenomena cited as furnishing positive and unimpeachable evidence in its
+favour, which were mentioned above in our sketch of its main features?
+
+First as to the rudimentary, fragmentary, or vestigial organs so common
+in Nature. These, it is said, being of no possible advantage to their
+possessors, and often a serious disadvantage, can be explained only by
+supposing that they were serviceable in the past to the ancestral race
+whence these possessors are derived, and have since been superseded by
+other modifications of structure, so as to dwindle away by disuse. This,
+no doubt, seems a very plausible explanation, but it does not follow
+that we ought immediately to adopt it as a certainty, instead of
+setting ourselves to examine how it accords with all the facts. Nothing
+is more dangerous and less scientific than to be in a hurry to conclude
+that everything is certain which seems to ourselves probable, especially
+if it suits a theory of our own. Unfortunately, this law is too
+frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance. In the
+present instance, Professor Haeckel himself furnishes an example. He is
+quite sure that the rudimentary structures can have but one
+significance, and that they are fatal to the idea of purpose in Nature,
+the object of his special aversion, and so he has proposed a new term,
+"Dysteleology," to embody this idea, of which he says,[224]
+
+     _Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness_ [is] the name I
+     have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of suppressed and
+     degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of the body; one of the
+     most important and most interesting branches of comparative
+     anatomy, which, when rightly estimated, is alone sufficient to
+     refute the fundamental error of the teleological and dualistic
+     conception of Nature, and to serve as the foundation of the
+     mechanical and monistic conception of the universe.
+
+It will be sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's remarks upon this
+passage, taken from the very laudatory review he wrote of the work in
+which it occurs.[225]
+
+
+     Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,
+     "Dysteleology," for the study of the "purposelessnesses" which are
+     observable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of
+     rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,
+     that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut
+     two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that
+     useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral
+     rudiments of toes in the foot of a horse place us in a dilemma.
+     For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which
+     case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form
+     since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or
+     they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no
+     use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but stronger
+     argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even
+     functional mammary glands in male mammals.... There can be little
+     doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the
+     remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet
+     it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male
+     organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its
+     dysteleological value is gone.
+
+In later editions Professor Huxley further observed: "The recent
+discovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a
+warning to all speculators about useless organs."[226]
+
+It seems, therefore, the wiser part to refrain from basing any vital
+conclusions upon these organs until we can assure ourselves that our
+knowledge warrants our so doing. As the same Professor Huxley intimated,
+it might be well for palaeontologists, and doubtless for biologists
+likewise,[227] "To learn a little more carefully that scientific '_ars
+artium_,' the art of saying 'I don't know.'"
+
+So again as to the phenomena of embryology. No doubt they are very
+striking and impressive. That the most highly developed creatures, and
+man himself, should in the first stages of existence exhibit the
+characteristics of lower forms, is an exemplification of development no
+less signal than the succession of ascending types witnessed to by the
+rocks. It is not easy to see, however, why it should be taken for
+granted that this can only signify genetic descent from all such forms,
+and that these embryo animals are engaged in climbing up their
+genealogical trees. Yet this is usually assumed as a matter of course,
+and any one who ventures to question the validity of such an inference,
+must be prepared to find himself accused of dogmatizing.
+
+And yet, after all, upon what grounds does the assumption rest? That
+such a recapitulation of racial experiences forms no essential feature
+of Evolution is sufficiently evident from the case of the vegetable
+world,--for plants do not climb _their_ genealogical trees, or pass in
+the seed through a series of botanical phases. And as to animals, since
+through all varieties of form, each always arrives at the required term,
+it is obvious that, apart from any archaic associations, and on
+Darwinian principles themselves, these forms must be the best for the
+purpose at each respective stage,--perhaps the only ones by which the
+term could be reached. It is therefore, to say the least, quite
+conceivable, that we have here the whole explanation and need go no
+further.
+
+In certain instances this obvious consideration is strikingly
+illustrated. Thus the salamander, an Amphibian of the newt family,
+brings forth its young in adult condition without gills.[228] But
+previously to birth they have gills relatively large. The experiment
+having been tried of bringing some of them forth by artificial means
+before their time, and placing them in water, the first thing they did
+was to cast off these big gills, which were speedily replaced by new
+ones of much smaller size, and evidently better suited for the work
+required, as they lasted as long as a fortnight.
+
+Here, in the first place, it is quite impossible to suppose that the
+large gills would continue to appear unless they were of advantage
+during the period of gestation. It is equally evident that it is not
+from a previous aquatic condition that they are inherited, for in such a
+condition they are useless. Finally, as Mr. Mivart observes, the new
+gills, suitable for unwonted conditions, were developed "not in a
+struggle for existence against rivals, but directly and spontaneously
+from the innate nature of the animal."
+
+This view of the matter commended itself on mature consideration to so
+ardent an evolutionist as Carl Vogt, with whom we may couple M. de
+Quatrefages, who cites his words with approval as follows:[229]
+
+     It has been laid down as a fundamental law of biogenesis that
+     ontogeny (the development of the individual) and phylogeny (that of
+     the race) must exactly correspond.... This law which I long held as
+     well founded is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of
+     embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own
+     conditions suitable to themselves, very different from those of
+     adults.
+
+"In a word," M. de Quatrefages continues, "the learned Genevan professor
+rightly considers that, 'The ontogenesis of all organic beings without
+exception, is the normal result of all the various influences which
+operate upon such beings.'"
+
+But it must, moreover, be noted that the story which embryology can be
+made to tell is by no means so plain as we might easily be led to
+suppose.
+
+Thus, although snakes are held to be descended from lizards, and some of
+them have rudimentary legs even in the adult stage, others have no trace
+of limbs even in the egg, while they _have_ vestiges of gills, and thus
+would seem to be visibly linked to ancient water-dwelling ancestors, and
+not to far more recent land-dwellers. Again;[230] Amphibians (frogs,
+newts and the like) agree in some respects, as to the development of the
+germ, with mammals, differing in the same respects from reptiles and
+birds. But reptiles and birds are supposed to be a more recent
+development than Amphibia, and therefore should intervene between them
+and mammals on the genealogical tree. Moreover the eggs of one group of
+Amphibians are found to exhibit some remarkable resemblances to those of
+reptiles and birds, from which it would thus appear to have derived
+them, although on other grounds it is declared to be of an older stock
+than theirs. Most frogs, toads, and newts come out of the egg as
+tadpoles, furnished with gills and so breathing in water. This should
+signify that these creatures are descended from fish or fishlike
+ancestors. But one frog (_Rana opisthodon_) is never a tadpole even in
+the egg, from which he gets out by means of a special opener on his
+snout which he has somehow acquired. On the other hand certain
+newts[231] breed as tadpoles instead of in their mature form, which
+looks like an attempt to climb down the tree instead of up.
+
+It will be remembered that the latter phrase was that used by Professor
+Milnes Marshall. Yet even he expressed himself strongly concerning the
+exaggerations of Professor Haeckel on this subject. In his review of
+Haeckel's _Anthropogenie_,[232] after observing that many descriptions
+of human embryology have been based on observations of dogs, pigs,
+rabbits, or even chickens and dogfish, he thus continued regarding the
+book before him:
+
+     A student who relied on Professor Haeckel's description, would
+     obtain an entirely erroneous idea of the development of the human
+     embryo.... It is a matter for great regret that a book of 900
+     pages, bearing such a title, should be allowed to appear, in which
+     the account of the actual development of the human embryo is so
+     inadequate or even erroneous.
+
+Far more fundamental, however, is a remark of Mr. Mivart's, that if, as
+Darwinians say, the development of the individual is an epitome of that
+of the species, the latter must like the former be due to the action of
+definite innate laws unconsciously carrying out definite preordained
+ends and purposes. For although cells or embryos may be
+indistinguishable from one another, and may appear to us identical in
+constitution, their differences are absolute. Each is determined to be
+one sort of animal and no other, and can live at all only on condition
+of developing towards the prescribed form.--Therefore, whatever evidence
+the embryonic forms may be supposed to afford in support of Evolution,
+they have nothing in common with the haphazard process of Natural
+Selection.
+
+And here again Professor Huxley found himself obliged to enter his
+_caveat_, and to intimate his opinion that some of his friends were
+inclined to build too confidently upon this foundation. As his
+biographer Professor Weldon writes in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_:
+
+     Darwin had suggested an interpretation of the facts of embryology
+     which led to the hope that a fuller knowledge of development might
+     reveal the history of all the great groups of animals at least in
+     its main outlines. This hope was of service as a stimulus to
+     research, but the attempt to interpret the phenomena observed led
+     to speculations which were often fanciful and always incapable of
+     verification. Huxley was keenly sensible of the danger attending
+     the use of a hypothetical explanation, leading to conclusions which
+     cannot be experimentally tested, and he carefully avoided it.... In
+     the preface to the _Manual of the Comparative Anatomy of
+     Invertebrated Animals_, he says: "I have abstained from discussing
+     questions of aetiology,[233] not because I underestimate their
+     importance, or am insensible to the interest of the great problem
+     of Evolution, but because, to my mind, the growing tendency to mix
+     up aetiological speculations with morphological generalizations
+     will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion."
+
+Accordingly, Huxley himself based his faith in Evolution on
+palaeontological evidence, and attempted to decide the precise course it
+had followed only "in the few cases where the evidence seemed to him
+sufficiently complete." This line of enquiry we have still to pursue,
+but meanwhile, it is evident that the phenomena we have been
+considering, failing to meet the approval of so thorough-going an
+Evolutionist as he undoubtedly was, cannot be said to furnish convincing
+scientific evidence in favour of Darwinism.
+
+It will be asked how it comes to pass, if the Darwinian system really
+lies open to so many objections, that it occupies so large a place in
+scientific estimation. To this we must reply that, in spite of its great
+name, its success has throughout been popular rather than truly
+scientific, and that as time went on it has lost ground among the class
+of men best qualified to judge. Evolutionists there are in plenty,--but
+very few genuine Darwinists, and amongst these can by no means be
+reckoned all who adopt the title, for not a few of them--as Romanes and
+Weismann--profess doctrines which cannot be reconciled with those of
+Darwin himself. Meanwhile, an increasing volume of scientific opinion
+sets definitely against Darwinism as an adequate explanation of the
+philosophy of life, and falls into the view expressed long ago by
+Charles Robin[234] who, as a freethinker, had no antecedent objections
+against it, "Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of
+probabilities without proof, and of attractive explanations without
+demonstration."
+
+It would be tedious to cite testimonies at length, but, in addition to
+M. de Quatrefages who has made a full and careful study of the whole
+question, [_Charles Darwin et ses precurseurs Francais_, and _Les Emules
+de Darwin_] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [_La
+vie des etres animes_], Wigand [_Der Darwinismus und die
+Naturforschung_, etc.], Wolff [_Beitraege zur Kritik der darwinschen
+Lehre_], Hamann [_Entwicklungslehre und Darwinismus_], Pauly [_Wahres
+und Falsches an Darwins Lehre_], Driesch [_Biologisches Zentralblatt_,
+1896 and 1902], Plate [_Bedeutung und Tragweite des Darwinschen
+Selektionsprincip_], Hertwig [_Address to Naturalist Congress_,
+_Aachen_, 1900], Heer [_Urwelt der Schweiz_], Koelliker [_Ueber die
+darwin'sche Schoepfungstheorie_], Eimer [_Entstehung der Arten_], Von
+Hartmann [_Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus_], Schilde
+[_Antidarwinistisches im Ausland_], Du Bois-Reymond [_Conference_,
+August 2, 1881, etc.], Virchow [_Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, etc.],
+Naegeli [_Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre_],
+Schaafhausen [_Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen_], Fechner [_Ideen zur
+Schoepfungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen_], Jakob [_Der
+Mensch_, etc.], Diebolder [_Darwins Grundprinzip_, etc.], Huber [_Die
+Lehre Darwins kritisch betrachtet_], Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer,--all
+of whom either reject Darwinism altogether, or admit it only with fatal
+reservations.
+
+Special weight must attach to the adverse verdict of M. Fabre, styled by
+Darwin himself "that inimitable observer," who declares that he cannot
+reconcile the theory with the facts he encounters.[235]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one or two of our own countrymen, whose
+utterances will enable us to form an opinion as to the true scientific
+status of the doctrine.
+
+We may begin with Huxley, the great popular champion of Darwinism, who
+did more than any other man to spread the new doctrine. Yet, strange to
+say, he seems never to have really accepted its fundamental tenet
+himself, always appearing very shy of Natural Selection, and carefully
+abstaining from committing himself to any responsibility for it. Thus in
+his treatise on _Man's Place in Nature_, he thus explains his position
+in its regard:
+
+     Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent
+     with any biological fact; on the contrary, if admitted, the facts
+     of Development, of Comparative Anatomy, of Geographical
+     Distribution, and of Palaeontology, become connected together, and
+     exhibit a meaning such as they never possessed before; and I, for
+     one, am firmly convinced, that if not precisely true, that
+     hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for
+     example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the
+     planetary motions. But for all this, our acceptance of the
+     Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+     chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and
+     plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock
+     are fertile with one another, the link will be wanting. For, so
+     long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do
+     all that is required of it to produce natural species.
+
+This missing link, like various others, has never been supplied, and in
+consequence Professor Huxley never abandoned his attitude of reserve. On
+the contrary, when, in 1880, he delivered an address to celebrate "the
+Coming of Age of the _Origin of Species_" he discharged the task without
+once mentioning Natural Selection, which is to that work as the Prince
+of Denmark is to _Hamlet_.
+
+But there is one passage in the said address, which deserves to be
+specially remembered:
+
+     History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to
+     begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now
+     stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty
+     years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the
+     present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of
+     the _Origin of Species_, with as little reflection, and it may be
+     with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries,
+     twenty years ago, rejected them.
+
+In 1886, Professor Romanes pronounced as follows:[236]
+
+"At present it would be impossible to find any working naturalist who
+supposes that survival of the fittest is competent to explain all the
+phenomena of species-formation."
+
+As to the actual position now occupied in Scientific opinion by Mr.
+Darwin's hypotheses, we may content ourselves with the declaration of
+Professor S. H. Vines in his Presidential address to the Linnean
+Society, May 24, 1902.
+
+     1. It is established that Natural Selection, though it may have
+     perpetuated species, cannot have originated any.
+
+     2. It is still a mystery why Evolution should tend from the lower
+     to the higher, from simple to complex organisms.
+
+     3. The facts seem to admit of no other interpretation than that
+     variation is not [as Darwin supposed] indeterminate, but that there
+     is in living matter an inherent determination in favour of
+     variation in the higher direction.
+
+That is to say, Darwin's _Origin of Species_ does not explain the Origin
+of Species; and as to the laws which govern Evolution we can be sure
+only that they are not those which he assigned.
+
+In like manner, Sir Oliver Lodge pronounces:[237]
+
+     Take the origin of species by the persistence of favourable
+     variations; how is the appearance of these same favourable
+     variations accounted for? Except by artificial selection not at
+     all. Given their appearance, their development by struggle and
+     inheritance and survival can be explained; but that they arose
+     spontaneously, by random changes without purpose, is an assertion
+     which cannot be made.
+
+We are thus in a position to form our own judgment as to the claim made
+on behalf of Mr. Darwin, with which we started this chapter--namely,
+that he has eliminated all mystery from the organic world by the
+discovery of natural mechanical laws by which all its operations are
+governed. It is, indeed, difficult to understand how Darwinists
+themselves can suppose their system to make any such claim, for, as M.
+Paul Vignon truly observes,[238] "La science darwinnienne s'imaginait
+avoir triomphe du Sphinx, alors qu'elle avait simplement decompose le
+probleme dans une monnaie d'enigmes moins rebarbatives en apparence." As
+has been said, it is far more on account of the vast consequences
+professedly based upon it, as a sure foundation stone, than for its own
+sake, that it has seemed advisable to devote so much attention to the
+study of Darwinism, quite apart from which the whole question of organic
+Evolution still demands consideration.
+
+It seems far more just to conclude with M. Fabre:[239]
+
+     Let us acknowledge that in truth we know nothing about anything, so
+     far as ultimate truths are concerned. Scientifically considered
+     nature is a riddle to which human curiosity can find no answer.
+     Hypothesis follows hypothesis, the ruins of theories are piled one
+     on another, but truth ever escapes us. To learn how to remain in
+     ignorance may well be the final lesson of wisdom.[240]
+
+
+
+
+XVI
+
+THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION
+
+
+Leaving the field of speculation and "aetiology," we have now to enquire,
+not to what causes organic Evolution may be attributable, but how far it
+can be shewn to have actually occurred. This can be learnt only from the
+history of life upon earth as disclosed by the evidence of palaeontology,
+or the geological record, and we are thus brought to the investigation
+of that evidence, by which alone, as Professor Huxley agrees, can the
+truth about Evolution be scientifically or satisfactorily established.
+In his address recently mentioned on occasion of the twenty-first
+birthday of the _Origin of Species_, having spoken of various advances
+of our knowledge, as in comparative anatomy and embryology, which had
+helped to win acceptance for transformist doctrines, he thus continued:
+
+     But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove
+     dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence
+     in favour of evolution can be furnished only by palaeontology. The
+     geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must,
+     when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a
+     negative answer; if evolution has taken place, there will its mark
+     be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.
+
+This is common sense. Evolution can claim to be a scientific truth, only
+so far as clear evidence is forthcoming that Evolution there has been.
+If the geological record be sufficiently complete to prove or disprove
+its claims, the question is settled for ever. If, on the other hand, the
+record be not complete enough for a conclusive verdict, it is, at least,
+hard to understand the grounds of such a statement as that the doctrine
+of Evolution has long since passed beyond the stage of discussion among
+scientific thinkers;[241] or that of Professor Marsh, that to doubt
+Evolution is to doubt Science; or of Professor Huxley himself[242]--"So
+far as the animal world is concerned, Evolution is no longer a
+speculation, but a matter of historical fact."
+
+This historical enquiry is accordingly all-important, and it is one
+which should be easy to undertake without any prepossessions, for it is
+hard to see upon what _a priori_ grounds these could rest. That there
+has been Evolution in one sense of the term is obvious,--that is to say,
+development of organic types from lower to higher forms, from the
+sea-weed or fungus to the oak or the rose, from the star-fish or the
+coral-insect, to the eagle or to man. The question is, not whether there
+has been such a progressive succession of forms, but whether one form
+has proceeded from another _genetically_, being produced in the same
+manner as individuals of a species now are. That this has been the case,
+as Professor Huxley tells us in the same address, is the cornerstone of
+evolutionary teaching. He appears indeed to restrict Evolution within
+the limits of classes and groups, but such restriction is so contrary to
+all his principles that the words which seem to imply it can scarcely be
+taken as having any definite significance. Should the appearance of
+different classes and groups require to be severally accounted for, we
+should be landed back in the system of separate creations against which
+he is never tired of inveighing.
+
+     The fundamental doctrine of all forms of the theory of evolution
+     applied to biology [he says] is that the innumerable species,
+     genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is
+     peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group,
+     from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of
+     descent.
+
+And, holding as he does that palaeontology furnishes the necessary
+evidence, he thus continues:
+
+     And, in the view of the facts of geology, it follows that all
+     living animals and plants are the lineal descendants of those which
+     lived long before the Silurian epoch.
+
+Here is a plain issue, and one, as has been said, to be discussed
+without prejudice. That the innumerable forms of organic life should
+thus have been genetically derived one from another, is no more
+difficult to conceive than that they should have come into existence at
+all. Moreover, it appears to our minds almost a first principle that
+natural law must suffice to account for the phenomena of nature from
+beginning to end, and that any system is self-condemned which finds
+anywhere in these phenomena evidence of a non-natural, or supernatural,
+interposition. Has not such a theologian as Suarez, following St.
+Augustine, laid it down as an axiom[243] that God does not directly
+interfere with the operations of Nature, when He can effect His purposes
+through natural causes? Undoubtedly, too, it is difficult for our minds
+to imagine in what way, except through genetic evolution, the successive
+production of more and more developed types could be effected.
+
+But, as has before been observed, what seems to us probable is not
+therefore proved to be true. What we want are facts, and by facts we
+must be ready to abide. At the same time, it is not very easy to
+understand the supreme importance which evolutionists generally appear
+to attach to the descent of all living creatures from some _one_
+original, and their abhorrence of the idea that the power, whatever it
+was, which first produced life, may have operated repeatedly, at
+different epochs, to repeat the production. It seems to be assumed that
+this must imply "miracle" and interruption of the continuity of Nature,
+to admit which is irrational and unscientific. But since life did
+unquestionably once originate somehow, which Science makes no attempt to
+deny, why should it be so improper to suppose that it originated more
+than once, at various times and in various forms, and that,
+consequently, genetic descent with modification, or "Evolution," is not
+the explanation of typic development? As Sir J. W. Dawson writes[244]
+concerning the oyster tribe, whereof two species are found in the Coal
+Measures (one European and the other American), and a continuous
+succession of species ever since:
+
+     All these species may have proceeded from one origin, by descent
+     with modification, or, on the other hand, the same causes which led
+     to their origination in the Carboniferous may have operated again
+     and again.
+
+It must, however, be remembered that, if the theory of genetic descent
+with accumulation of minute modifications be the true explanation of the
+production of new forms, it necessarily follows, that could a complete
+record be forthcoming of the ancestry of any actual species, there would
+be found in that pedigree no distinction of species or genera, for no
+sharply marked lines of limitation would be discoverable. It would be
+like the case of a man who had been photographed every hour of his life
+from birth to old age;--immense though the difference might be between
+the two extremes, the gradations of change would at all points pass as
+imperceptibly into one another as do the phases of the moon. This
+consideration is both fundamental and obvious, yet it would seem to be
+almost universally ignored. It appears to be thought that, in order to
+demonstrate the fact of evolution, all that is needed is to find a form
+here and there, in some sense intermediate between others,--like the
+reptilian birds already mentioned. This would imply that the course of
+Evolution must be like that of an army, making long marches from point
+to point, and traceable only by the remains of its camp-fires: whereas
+it should be as that of a glacier continuously creeping on, and leaving
+its tracks at one point as much as another. What are wanted, therefore,
+as evidence for Evolution, are not isolated specific forms uniting some
+characteristics of those which they are supposed to connect,--as
+Nelson's men-of-war form a stepping-stone between the vessels of the
+Norsemen and the ironclads of the present day,--but a series sufficient
+to show, or at least to indicate, that all changes have been gradual and
+insensible, without the introduction at any point of a new element. To
+pursue the illustration, such a new element would be gunpowder or steam
+in the evolution of the battle-ship, for by no mere development could
+bows or javelins produce a cannon, or sailing ships a steamboat.
+
+Therefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches
+completeness, its testimony,--if it is to be in favour of
+Evolution--must tend more and more in this direction, and unless, in
+some instance at least, clear evidence be discoverable of the melting of
+one form into another, it cannot possibly be said that we have
+sufficient proof that such a process ever occurred. Mere graduated
+resemblance of isolated forms does not necessarily imply such
+transmutation, as we see for example in the methodical progression of
+shape, exhibited by various crystals, and even more remarkably in the
+affinities which we can recognize among what we know as elementary
+substances.
+
+There is another important point to be borne in mind. According to the
+teaching of Evolutionists such as Darwin or Haeckel,[245] every Species
+has originated from a single ancestor,--or, as they should rather say,
+from a single pair.
+
+If this were so, it would necessarily follow that every new form,
+originating in some particular spot of earth, would very gradually
+spread thence to other regions, fighting its way along. As Mr. Darwin
+acknowledges,[246] "The development by this means (i.e. Natural
+Selection) of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one
+progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the
+progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants."
+
+Of this gradual spread of new types there should, at least in some
+cases, be some palaeontological evidence.
+
+It is likewise by no means easy to understand how species thus generated
+could stand solitary and isolated from kindred forms in the records of
+the earth. The pair of individuals which started a new persistent
+group,--its members all stamped with the same specific characters, while
+all around were in a state of flux and divergence,--differed from their
+immediate ancestors, as we have seen, only infinitesimally. They can
+have differed no more from many of their contemporaries, for all the
+lines of descent must ramify afresh in each generation, and so form a
+web rather than anything like a line. It is not very easy to understand
+how a pair here and there struck root and founded a species, while the
+thousands which jostled them round about failed to do so, for the others
+which survived longest must be supposed to have resembled them most
+nearly, and therefore to have participated in their advantages. At
+least, we should expect to find around them the debris of the multitude
+they vanquished in the struggle for existence.
+
+We are told, moreover, that, with hardly an exception, the organic forms
+found in a fossil state must be supposed to be the last of their
+special line of development, which terminated in them; so that neither
+can they be claimed as the direct ancestors of any other forms, fossil
+or living, nor can any others which are actually known be claimed as
+their progenitors. The genealogies supplied for almost all known
+species, extinct or existing, are admittedly conjectural, and as in the
+most famous instance of all, namely the supposed common ancestor of
+simians and men, the links are persistently "missing." Thus M. de
+Quatrefages, speaking of the human pedigree as set forth by Professor
+Haeckel, writes thus:[247]
+
+     All species, existing or extinct, are said to have been preceded by
+     _ancestral forms_ which have disappeared without leaving the
+     slightest vestige behind them. The _amphioxus_ itself, which more
+     than any other realizes the type of the group it represents, was
+     preceded, according to Haeckel, by the _provertebrate_, which no
+     man has ever seen, but of which, nevertheless, the Jena professor
+     gives us a figure, and describes the anatomy.
+
+Thus the number of forms postulated by the theory of genetic Evolution,
+must have been enormous beyond conception, in comparison with those
+belonging to the numerically insignificant groups which formed the mere
+extremities of branches on the genealogical tree.
+
+This being premised, we must ask what Geology has to tell us on the
+subject, and it will be well to begin by briefly recalling the main
+features of the geological record.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+The stratified rocks comprising the crust of the earth, in which fossil
+plants and animals are found embedded, have evidently been formed at
+successive periods, chiefly by the agency of water, each formation
+having begun as a sediment like the mud or ooze at the bottom of our
+oceans and seas. Geological investigation has proved that the
+chronological order of the strata thus deposited can be satisfactorily
+determined, and they are found to divide themselves, in respect of the
+organisms they contain, into three great series, lying above the _Azoic_
+(or lifeless) rocks, older than them all.
+
+These series, beginning from the bottom, in which order we shall have to
+trace their history, are most conveniently named _Primary_, _Secondary_,
+and _Tertiary_, otherwise termed respectively, _Paloeozoic_ ("ancient
+life"), _Mesozoic_ ("middle life"), and _Kainozoic_ ("recent life").
+Each of these again, contains various formations, or as we may call them
+volumes of its chronicle, each of which has its fixed place in order of
+sequence.
+
+Thus, always proceeding from below upwards, in the _Primary_ series,
+commencing with the _Laurentian_, we find successively the _Huronian_,
+_Cambrian_, _Silurian_, _Devonian_ or _Old Red Sandstone_,
+_Carboniferous_, and _Permian_.
+
+In the _Secondary_, the lowest formation is the _Triassic_ or _New Red
+Sandstone_, followed by the _Jurassic_ or _Oolite_, and the _Cretaceous_
+or _Chalk_.
+
+Finally the _Tertiary_ has three main divisions; the _Eocene_, or "dawn
+of the recent," _Miocene_, or "less recent," and _Pliocene_, or "more
+recent."
+
+Above these comes the series now in progress, variously called,
+_Quaternary_, _Post-Tertiary_, and _Pleistocene_, or "most recent."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It seems advisable to begin our investigation with the vegetable
+kingdom, as its classification being comparatively simple, the essential
+points of its development are easily followed. We cannot do better than
+start with the summary of its main divisions furnished by Mr.
+Carruthers.[248]
+
+     The vegetable kingdom is divided into sections, according to the
+     simplicity or complexity of structure. Associated with plants of
+     simple structure we find, as a rule, more elementary organs of
+     reproduction. Linnaeus made two great divisions, of flowering
+     (_Phanerogams_) and flowerless plants (_Cryptogams_).... The higher
+     group have flowers, with their stamens and pistils, which produce
+     seeds, while the lower group are without flowers and bear spores,
+     which are much simpler bodies than seeds. There are seven main
+     groups of spore-bearers--the _algae_ or water-weeds; the _fungi_ or
+     mushroom family; the _lichens_, which cover old walls and rocks
+     with patches of coloured vegetation; the _mosses_ with their green
+     leaves and urn-shaped fruit; the _ferns_ with their large and
+     usually much-divided leaves, on the back or edges of which the
+     spores are borne; the _horsetails_, found in wet places, having
+     jointed hollow stems and spores produced in little cones; and the
+     _club-mosses_, upright or creeping leafy plants found on our
+     mountains. These seven groups may be arranged in two divisions,
+     according to the tissues of which they are formed. In the first
+     four the whole plant is composed of _cells_, while in the last
+     three a firm _vascular skeleton_ is present. These characters are
+     of great importance to the student of fossil plants.... The
+     flowering plants are more complex in their structure, and in their
+     organs of reproduction. The lowest group of these plants is the
+     _Gymnosperms_, or naked-seeded plants, like our yews and pines. The
+     other flowering plants (_Angiosperms_) have their seeds in a closed
+     fruit. These are divided into two sections from characters derived
+     from the embryo plant in the seed, depending on whether this minute
+     plant has one seed-leaf (_cotyledon_) or two, and so we have
+     _Monocotyledons_ and _Dicotyledons_. The higher group, or
+     dicotyledons, have been arranged into three divisions, according to
+     the complexity of the flower. In one large group (_Apetalae_) the
+     pistil and stamens are not surrounded by petals, e.g. in the oak
+     and the stinging nettle: superior to them are the plants
+     (_Monopetalae_) in which the petals form a cup, as the
+     blue-bell[249] and the gentian, while the highest group
+     (_Polypetalae_) have all the petals separate, as the buttercups and
+     roses.[250]
+
+It is most important to recollect that on evolutionary principles the
+first representatives of any such classes--and the same holds of animals
+as well--must have been generalized forms, representing the type in the
+rough, or, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase, exhibiting by comparison
+with their successors indefinite incoherent homogeneity, as contrasted
+with definite coherent heterogeneity. They should bear the same sort of
+relation to the finished articles worked up by Evolution as did the
+first bone-shaker bicycle to our latest patterns, or the news-sheets of
+Cromwell's time to the _Times_ or _Graphic_ of to-day. On this, as we
+saw in the last chapter, Mr. Darwin strongly insists, confessing at the
+same time that the Geological record alone can establish such progress
+as a fact.
+
+How these various classes of plants appear actually to have come upon
+the scene, Mr. Carruthers relates both in the paper from which we have
+just quoted, and at greater length in the address which he delivered as
+President of the Geologists' Association,[251] to the following effect.
+
+In the first place, he declares that although the geological record, at
+least as known to us, is very imperfect, and represents only an
+insignificant fragment of plant-history,
+
+     There is a large series of plant-remains completely and accurately
+     known which supply a fair representation of the great events of
+     plant-life that have taken place on the earth since Palaeozoic
+     times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy
+     this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.
+
+There is--he goes on to say--indirect evidence of the existence of
+vegetable life, long before we find any actual remains. Such indirect
+evidence is afforded in the first place by the abundance during this
+period of animal life, needing plants for its sustenance, and secondly
+by the enormous quantity of carbon in the rocks, which must have been
+secreted from the atmosphere by vegetable tissues. There are also
+certain surface marks or impressions occasionally to be found, which are
+probably due to plants of a soft and perishable character like the
+cellular cryptogams, and which although extremely vague and undefined,
+at least do not contradict the evolutionist, who regards them as
+evidence that the _Algae_ were, as according to him they ought to have
+been, the primeval plants. Mr. Carruthers adds a caution however, which
+can find its application in other instances as well:
+
+     While making this admission in relation to the vegetation of these
+     older rocks, I must protest against the practice of completing the
+     record of life forms, by filling in particular groups without any
+     authority except the writer's impression of an adopted hypothesis,
+     and then basing arguments on these assumptions in support of the
+     hypothesis which created them. So completely has
+
+VEGETABLE DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               | Post Tertiary.|                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary.  {| Pliocene.     |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Miocene.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Eocene.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Secondary. {| Chalk.        | Dicotyledons (Apetalae, Polypetalae, |
+              {|               |   Sympetalae).                      |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Oolite.       |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Trias.        |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |               |                                    |
+              {| Permian.      |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Carboniferous.| Monocotyledons.                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {|               |                                    |
+              {| Devonian, or  | Clubmosses, Horsetails, Ferns,     |
+              {| Old Red       |   Gymnosperms.                     |
+              {| Sandstone.    |                                    |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Primary.   {| Silurian.     | } Cellular Cryptogams.             |
+              {| Cambrian.     | }                                  |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+              {| Huronian.     | } Indications of Plants,           |
+              {| Laurentian.   | }   not determinable.              |
+               +===================+================================+
+               | AZOIC.        |                                    |
+
+     phylogenetic [or racial] evolution become the creed of some leading
+     naturalists that they unwittingly proceed in this manifestly
+     unphilosophical method. But it is a first axiom, though one often
+     forgotten, in this as in every scientific enquiry, that no step can
+     be made in advance which is not based on fact.
+
+After this initial stage, the story becomes much clearer, and at the
+same time less easy to reconcile with evolutionary requirements.
+
+Instead of making their appearance singly and successively, and passing
+imperceptibly one into another, all three groups of Vascular Cryptogams,
+and the Gymnosperms into the bargain, come on the stage together, in the
+Devonian strata; and Monocotyledons in the lower Carboniferous
+immediately following. There is no trace whatever of the development of
+any of these forms from the earlier cellular cryptogams:
+
+     But [says Mr. Carruthers] the evolution of the Vascular Cryptogams,
+     and the Phanerogams, from the green seaweeds, through the
+     liverworts and mosses, if it took place, must have been carried on
+     through a long succession of ages, and by an innumerable series of
+     advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the
+     early water forms or of the later and still more numerous dry-land
+     forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the
+     fucoids in the Llandovery rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular
+     organisms elsewhere, were, at least, fitted to preserve _some_
+     record of the necessarily rich floras, if they existed, which
+     through immense ages, led by minute steps to the Conifer
+     [_Gymnosperm_] and Monocotyledon of these Palaeozoic Rocks.
+
+     Further, these earliest plants are not generalized forms of the
+     various tribes to which they belong, but they are as highly
+     specialized as any subsequent representatives of the particular
+     group to which they belong, and wherever they differ from later
+     plants, it is in the possession of a more perfect organization.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From all which facts Mr. Carruthers thus argues:
+
+     The complete absence of intermediate forms, and the sudden and
+     contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated
+     groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
+     countenance from the plant-record of these ancient rocks. The whole
+     evidence is against evolution, and there is none for it.[252]
+
+Dicotyledons furnish evidence of especial value. On account of their
+higher organization, they are easily distinguished from both
+Monocotyledons and Gymnosperms; and they present features which clearly
+differentiate them amongst themselves. They did not make their entry
+till after a long interval--and their remains are therefore to be found
+in strata comparatively recent and better known to us than those of the
+older rocks. It is in the Chalk, the newest of the Secondary or Mesozoic
+formations, that they first exhibit themselves, and they do it in the
+same fashion as their predecessors.
+
+When the Dicotyledons appear in the upper cretaceous beds,
+representatives of the three great groups [_Apetalae_, _Monopetalae_,
+_Polypetalae_] appear together in the same deposit. Moreover, these
+divisions are represented, not by generalized types, but by
+differentiated forms, which, during the intervening epochs, have not
+developed even into higher generic groups.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+And, here again, there is no vestige of intermediate species, linking
+dicotyledonous plants with other types.
+
+     No trace of a plant belonging to this great division has yet been
+     detected in any earlier stratum [than the upper chalk]. There is no
+     evidence whatever for Haeckel's statement that the _Apetalae_
+     probably existed in the Triassic and Jurassic periods.... It cannot
+     be doubted that the conditions favourable to the preservation of
+     Monocotyledons and Equisetums would have secured the preservation
+     of some of the _Apetalae_, had they existed. This absence can be
+     accounted for only on the supposition that they formed no part of
+     the then existing vegetation. And in the deposits older than the
+     Trias, or in any subsequent deposits, no intermediate form has been
+     detected,--no Gymnosperm or Monocotyledon which exhibits in any
+     point of its structure a modification towards the more highly
+     organized Dicotyledon.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Nor, on the same authority, is this all.
+
+     It is equally important in its bearing on the hypothesis of genetic
+     evolution that the generic groups above named have persisted from
+     the first known appearance of Dicotyledons, throughout the whole of
+     the intervening ages, and still hold their places unchanged among
+     the existing forms of vegetation. The persistence of generic and
+     specific types, and the certain knowledge we possess of the life of
+     many existing species of Phanerogams and Cryptogams which have come
+     down through the Glacial Epoch, have not been sufficiently
+     considered in their bearing on the hypothesis.
+
+We have already seen something of an example which illustrates this
+point in a remarkable manner,--that of _Salix polaris_, the willow which
+has so obstinately preserved its specific identity amid great stress of
+circumstances. It belongs to a very variable genus--one in which if
+anywhere evidence of genetic development might be looked for. Yet it is
+found that since a period prior to the great Ice Age, or Glacial epoch,
+it has remained absolutely unchanged. At such a rate, we cannot but ask,
+how long would Evolution take to get back to the generalized type-form,
+or common ancestor, of the genus _Salix_, and then to that of the Order
+_Salicineae_, which includes poplars as well as willows. "The Ordinal
+form, if it ever existed, must necessarily be much older than the period
+of the upper Cretaceous rocks, that is than the period to which the
+earliest known Dicotyledons belong."
+
+And it is obvious that when we had got back to the parental stock of the
+willow tribe, we should still, as evolutionists, be separated by a gulf
+still vastly greater from the common ancestor of all Dicotyledons, of
+oaks, apple-trees, primroses, and daisies no less than of willows and
+poplars.
+
+The significance of all these various facts is thus summed up:
+
+     The whole evidence supplied by fossil plants is, then, opposed to
+     the hypothesis of genetic evolution, and especially the sudden and
+     simultaneous appearance of the most highly organized plants at
+     particular stages in the past history of the globe, and the entire
+     absence amongst fossil plants of any forms intermediate between
+     existing classes or families. The facts of palaeontological botany
+     are opposed to Evolution, but they testify to Development, to
+     progression from lower to higher types. The cellular Algae preceded
+     the Vascular Cryptogams and the Gymnosperms of the Newer Palaeozoic
+     rocks, and these were speedily followed by Monocotyledons, and, at
+     a much later period, by Dicotyledons. But the earliest
+     representatives of these various sections of the vegetable kingdom
+     were not generalized forms, but as highly organized as recent
+     forms, and in many cases more highly organized: and the divisions
+     were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as
+     decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.
+
+So much for the vegetable world. As for the animal, although the number
+and complexity of its divisions makes it less easy to present so
+complete a sketch in these moderate limits, the features of its history
+are very similar. As Sir J. W. Dawson recounts it:[253]
+
+ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT.
+
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+               |  Post Tertiary.   |  Man and Modern Mammals.       |
+               +----------------------------------------------------+
+             { |    Pliocene.      |                                |
+             { +----------------------------------------------------+
+   Tertiary. { |    Miocene.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Eocene.        | Placental Mammals (Ungulates,  |
+             { |                   | Unguiculates, Rodents,         |
+             { |                   | Whales, Bats).                 |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Chalk.         |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Secondary.{ |    Oolite.        | Birds.                         |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Trias.         | Marsupial Mammals.             |
+               +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |    Permian.       | Reptiles (various orders).     |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Carboniferous.   |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |  Devonian, or     | Millipeds, Insects, Spiders,   |
+             { | Old Red Sandstone.| Scorpions, Fish, Batrachians,  |
+             { |                   | etc.                           |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+   Primary.  { |   Silurian.       |                                |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Cambrian.       | Shell Fish, Sponges, Molluscs, |
+             { |                   | Crustaceans, Worms, etc.       |
+             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+
+             { |   Huronian.       |  }                             |
+             { +-------------------+--}-----------------------------|
+             { |   Laurentian.     |  } Protozoa.                   |
+               +===================+================================+
+               |    AZOIC.         |                                |
+
+In the Cambrian age, we obtain a vast and varied accession of living
+things, which appear at once, as if by a sudden and simultaneous
+production of many kinds of animals. Here we find evidence that the sea
+swarmed with creatures near akin to those which still inhabit it, and
+nearly as varied.... Had we been able to drop our dredge into the
+Cambrian or Silurian ocean, we should have brought up representatives of
+all the leading types of invertebrate life that exist in the modern
+seas--different, it is true, in details of structure from those now
+existing, but constructed on the same principles, and filling the same
+places in nature.
+
+In the latter half of the Palaeozoic we find a number of higher forms
+breaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of the
+early Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great
+variety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, singularly
+enough, belonging in many cases to groups now very rare; while the
+commoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, Batrachian
+Reptiles now abound, some of them very high in the sub-class to which
+they belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and millipedes appear as well
+as land-snails: and this not in one locality only, but over the whole
+northern hemisphere.... Nor do they show any signs of an unformed or
+imperfect state.... The compound eyes and filmy wings of insects, the
+teeth, bones, and scales of batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly
+finished, and many quite as complex and elegant, as the animals of the
+present day.
+
+This wonderful Palaeozoic age was, however, but a temporary state of the
+earth. It passed away, and was replaced by the Mesozoic, emphatically
+the age of Reptiles, when animals of that type attained to colossal
+magnitude, to variety of function and structure, to diversity of habitat
+in sea and on land, altogether unexampled in their degraded descendants
+of modern times.... Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords
+appeared a few small and lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming
+age.[254] Birds also made their appearance.
+
+The Kainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of Mammals and of Man. In it the
+great reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are replaced on
+land and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with those now
+living, though differing as to genera and species. So greatly indeed did
+mammalian life abound in this period that in the middle part of the
+Tertiary most of the leading groups were represented by more numerous
+species than at present, while many types then existing
+
+     have now no representatives. At the close of this great and
+     wonderful procession of living beings comes Man himself--the last
+     and crowning triumph of creation the head, thus far, of life on the
+     earth.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.
+
+In the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested
+in higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of
+new forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the
+medium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
+
+The _Supposed line of continuous Evolution,_ indicates the gradual
+course which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian
+principles, by accumulation of minute differences in successive
+generations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance
+of highly differentiated types, as spoken of by palaeontologists.
+
+[_To face page 227._]]
+
+It must be sufficient to quote one other remark:[255]
+
+     There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time
+     one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another....
+     On the other hand, we constantly find species replaced by others
+     entirely new, and this without any transition. The two classes of
+     facts are essentially different, though often confounded by
+     evolutionists; and though it is possible to point out in the newer
+     geological formations some genera and species allied to others
+     which have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms
+     proceeded from the earlier, still, as the connecting links cannot
+     be found, this is mere supposition, not scientific certainty.
+     Further, it proceeds on the principle of arbitrary choice of
+     certain forms out of many, without any evidence of genetic
+     connexion.
+
+Having given a tabular view of Geological periods and Life-epochs,
+similar to those presented above, our author remarks:[256]
+
+     If in the table above we were to represent diagrammatically the
+     development of animals and plants, this would appear not as a
+     smooth and continuous stream, but as a series of great waves, each
+     rising abruptly, and then descending and flowing on at a lower
+     level along with the remains of those preceding it.
+
+And here may be noticed an observation made amongst others by the Comte
+de Saporta[257] on the remarkable parallelism of Animal and Vegetable
+development. After a period in which these kingdoms were respectively
+represented by aquatic _Algae_ and _Protozoa_, land animals and land
+plants appear to have come in much at the same epoch; and afterwards
+dicotyledonous plants immediately preceded the advent of mammals.
+
+Mr. Mivart is of like mind with the others we have heard. "The mass of
+palaeontological evidence," he writes,[258] "is indeed overwhelmingly
+against minute and gradual modification." He points out, with the _North
+British_ Reviewer so frequently quoted, that had the later forms of life
+descended from the earlier, through such a series of imperceptible
+gradations as is imagined, the probability would be that no two fossil
+specimens would be exactly alike, whereas in fact numbers are found of
+certain particular patterns, and none whatever between them, fossil
+animals and plants falling naturally into species, genera, families, and
+other categories just like those of the present day.
+
+It is this total absence of graduated series, linking different forms
+together, that is the great and fundamental difficulty in the way of
+genetic evolution. Yet this seems very seldom to be realized, and it
+seems constantly to be assumed that in order to establish the genetic
+continuity of two creatures no more is required than to discover
+another standing more or less between them. Thus in the most famous of
+all instances, how often do we hear of "the missing link" between man
+and ape,--as though should a generalized form be disclosed, which might
+be considered a common ancestor, the question of man's simian origin
+would be finally settled. In the same way, as we have seen, the
+existence of birds with reptilian features, is taken by some as
+conclusive proof that birds and reptiles have descended from one stock.
+But what is most imperatively wanted, is persistently wanting,--namely
+some evidence of a series in which one form passes to another, as in a
+dissolving view. And yet, genetic evolutionists must suppose such series
+to have been the universal rule throughout the whole course of life on
+earth.
+
+     Assuredly [writes M. de Quatrefages][259] is it not singularly
+     unfortunate for the evolutionary theory that so many facts which
+     tell against it should have been preserved in the scraps of
+     Nature's great book which remain to us, and that invariably those
+     which would have told in its favour were recorded in lost volumes
+     and missing leaves?
+
+In some particular instances the absence of any trace of intermediate
+forms is especially significant. The tribe of Bats, for instance, is a
+very singular one. The wings, in which form the fore-limbs are
+specialized, represent the same elements as our own hands; and other
+modifications of the same members have produced the paws of cats and
+dogs, the hoofs of horses and cattle, and the flippers of whales and
+porpoises,--to mention no others. What countless hosts of the Bat's
+ancestors must have lived and died while by accumulation of minute
+differences the primitive generalized limb whence all these diverse
+forms originated, was being turned into a wing capable of flight. Yet of
+all these no vestige is to be discovered. "Whenever the remains of bats
+have been found," says Mr. Mivart,[260] "they have presented the exact
+type of existing forms." The same, he tells us, holds good of other
+flying creatures--birds and pterodactyles--(or flying lizards--now
+wholly extinct). No trace of any of these is forthcoming while their
+wings were in the making. "Yet had such a slow mode of origin as
+Darwinians [and genetic evolutionists generally] contend for, operated
+exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that bats, birds,
+and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a
+single relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different
+forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional
+condition!"
+
+There are other creatures which stand in solitary isolation, with no
+fragments of a bridge to connect them with the general body. Such is the
+rattlesnake's family, whose pedigree, Mr. Mivart declares,[261] we
+cannot even imagine--"The ancestors of the rattlesnake are beyond our
+mental vision."
+
+     But the number of forms [says the same author][262] represented by
+     many individuals, yet by _no transitional ones_, is so great that
+     only two or three can be selected as examples. Thus those
+     remarkable fossil reptiles, the Icthyosauria and Plesiosauria,
+     extended, through the secondary period, probably over the greater
+     part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met
+     with in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again,
+     with their modern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant
+     forms alone have been found, but no series of transitional ones
+     indicating minutely the line of descent. This group, the whales, is
+     a very marked one, and it is curious, on Darwinian principles, that
+     so few instances tending to indicate its mode of origin should have
+     presented themselves. Here, as in the bats, we might surely expect
+     that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages of its
+     development would have been left.
+
+Professor W. C. Williamson likewise remarks[263] on these _lacunae_ which
+persistently occur at crucial points:
+
+     If [he writes] these generic types [of plants] first came before us
+     in such clearly defined forms, when and where did the transitional
+     states make their appearance? The extreme evolutionists constantly
+     affirm of those who believe in special creation that they
+     "habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote
+     from human observation," and that "the conception survives only in
+     connexion with imagined places where the order of organic phenomena
+     is unknown." It is legitimate to retort upon them that they as
+     habitually resort to "strata now covered by the sea"--to rocks
+     "from which all traces of such fossils as they probably included
+     have been obliterated by igneous action," and to mysterious
+     "migrations from pre-existing continents to continents that were
+     step by step emerging from the ocean." Unfortunately, so far as the
+     vegetable kingdom is concerned, we have as yet failed to discover
+     any traces of these mysterious strata or hypothetical continents in
+     which the transitions from one plant-type to another were being
+     brought about. The believers in special creations are not the only
+     reasoners who have made free use of hypothetical possibilities.
+
+He presently adds:
+
+     We have no evidence that unaided Nature has produced a single new
+     type during the historic period. We can only conclude that the
+     wonderful outburst of genetic activity which characterized the
+     Tertiary age was due to some unknown factor, which then operated
+     with an energy to which the earth was a stranger, both previously
+     and subsequently. The knowledge of this factor is what we need in
+     order to perfect our philosophy; and until we obtain that
+     knowledge, many things must remain unaccounted for, so far as
+     primeval vegetation is concerned.
+
+And elsewhere Professor Williamson reiterates the same idea:[264]
+
+     I contend stoutly [he says] that, however numerous may be the facts
+     that sustain the doctrine of evolution (and I am prepared to admit
+     that there are many that do so in a remarkable manner), this
+     unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition of some
+     factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the
+     evolutionist school.
+
+In the record of fossil fishes he finds some features which are
+particularly hard to harmonize with any theory of genetic
+evolution.[265] Amongst the very earliest representatives of this class,
+even in the upper Silurian, are found remains of sharks, in his opinion
+the highest order of fish, and in the Devonian and Carboniferous above,
+of _Ganoids_ armour clad, like the sturgeon. But nowhere below the Chalk
+do we find a single scale of _Cycloids_ or _Ctenoids_, which in regard
+alike of the scales themselves, of the nervous system and of the
+reproductive organs, are much below the sharks, and not above the
+_Ganoids_. To complicate matters still more, however, the skeleton of
+_Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_ is more highly organized than that of the
+others, and it is thus equally impossible to describe them as
+progressive or as retrogressive types.[266]
+
+Over and above this absence of intermediate or link forms, the witnesses
+who have been cited insist on the fact that those earliest found are
+not simple or generalized representatives of their respective types, as
+the theory of genetic evolution requires them to be, but are as
+perfectly finished and specialized as those appearing in later ages. To
+their testimony on this point may be added that of Professor Huxley, who
+while frankly confessing that he would be glad enough to find evidence
+in favour of such progressive modification, was constrained by his love
+of scientific truth to bear witness as follows:[267]
+
+     The only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure--positive
+     evidence--fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification
+     towards a less embryonic, or less generalized type, in a great many
+     groups of animals of long-continued geological existence. In these
+     groups there is abundant evidence of variation--none of what is
+     generally understood as progression; and if the known geological
+     record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the
+     whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily
+     progressive development can stand, for the numerous orders and
+     families cited afford no trace of such a process.
+
+So again he declared at a later period[268] summarizing what he had said
+previously:
+
+     In answer to the question, What does an impartial survey of the
+     positively ascertained truths of palaeontology testify in relation
+     to the common doctrines of progressive modification?... I reply: It
+     negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of
+     such modification, or demonstrates such modification as has
+     occurred to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that
+     modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earliest
+     members of a long-existing group were more generalized in structure
+     than the later ones.
+
+He went on, however, to say, on this latter occasion, that discoveries
+made in the interval afforded much ground for softening "the Brutus-like
+severity" which eight years before he had exhibited in this regard, by
+disclosing such evidence as he had declared to be lacking. From the
+samples, however, which he produced, it does not appear that this fresh
+testimony comes to very much; and in view of the observations with which
+he accompanied the exposition, it would seem that in only one instance
+did it appear to himself thoroughly satisfactory.
+
+     Every fossil [he said][269] which takes an intermediate place
+     between forms of life already known, may be said, so far as it is
+     intermediate, to be evidence in favour of Evolution, inasmuch as it
+     shows a possible road by which Evolution may have taken place. But
+     the mere discovery of such a form does not, in itself, prove that
+     Evolution took place by and through it, nor does it constitute
+     more than presumptive evidence in favour of Evolution in general.
+
+     It is easy[270] to accumulate probabilities--hard to make out some
+     particular case in such a way that it will stand rigorous
+     criticism. After much search, however, I think that such a case is
+     to be made out in favour of the pedigree of the Horse.
+
+Of this famous instance we have already heard, and since it will be
+examined at length in the following chapter, we will not dwell further
+upon it here.
+
+So obvious indeed is this deficiency for evolutionary requirements of
+the Geological record, that Professor Haeckel attempts to supply the
+want by boldly interpolating a number of periods during which the
+metamorphoses occurred, but of which no record was left. He assumes that
+between the epochs of depression, when fossils were deposited beneath
+the water, there were other epochs of elevation when the land was dry
+and no deposits could occur, and he supposes that the abrupt changes of
+flora and fauna exhibited by successive formations, are due to the lapse
+of time of which we have no organic record in what he styles these
+"Ante-periods."
+
+As to this summary mode of loosing the Gordian knot, it will be
+sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's verdict: "I confess this is
+wholly incredible to me."[271] And although in his favourable review of
+Haeckel's book[272] he showed himself far more tolerant of gratuitous
+speculations, than his utterances on other occasions might have led us
+to expect, upon this point he declared: "I fundamentally and entirely
+disagree with Professor Haeckel."
+
+We may sum up the testimonies of which the above are representative in
+the words of two authorities by no means hostile to Evolution. M. Edmond
+Perrier,[273] having shewn how this theory is suggested by the
+successive developments of type, and how the phenomena of organic life
+seem to harmonize with it, thus continues:
+
+     Unfortunately, when we descend to details, such palaeontological
+     gaps present themselves that every sort of objection is possible.
+     The chain which morphology has allowed us to piece together is
+     continually snapped when we essay to travel back into the past....
+     The art of distinguishing realities from phantoms of the
+     imagination is what has made modern science so great and so mighty.
+     She is strong enough to win honour by avowing ignorance, and
+     because men see her always determined to speak the truth, they
+     gradually realize that she is not dangerous.
+
+And in his Presidential address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1902,
+Professor S. H. Vines thus expressed himself as to the genealogical
+table of organic life, which ever since the doctrine of Evolution was
+accepted, it has been sought to construct:
+
+     Though here and there fragments of the mosaic seem to have been
+     successfully pieced together, the main outlines, even, of the great
+     picture are as yet but dimly discernible.
+
+     The fact that organic Evolution should have proceeded so far as it
+     has within such limits of time as may reasonably be allowed,
+     admits, to my mind, of no other interpretation than that variation
+     is not indeterminate, but, as Lamarck and Naegeli have urged, there
+     must exist in living matter a certain inherent tendency or bias in
+     favour of variation in the higher direction. It is this tendency or
+     bias that I venture to regard as the primordial factor.
+
+But it is precisely such an inherent tendency of organic life to develop
+on predetermined lines, which Darwinians and other advocates of
+Evolution by the agency of physical forces alone, vehemently repudiate
+as fatal to their whole system.
+
+     [Since Professor Williamson wrote, the opinion has been adopted
+     that for the very reason which induced him to place the Sharks
+     above the _Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_, their relative positions
+     should be reversed. The Sharks being a more "generalized" type,
+     with features more akin to those of land-dwelling reptiles, and the
+     others more "specialized" for purely aquatic conditions, the
+     latter, it is argued, are a higher evolutionary product. As a
+     necessary corollary it is assumed that vertebrate life originated,
+     not, as had been supposed, in the sea, but in swamps or lagoons on
+     the shore-line. It must, however, remain a question how far the
+     facility with which theories can thus be modified according to
+     requirements, is calculated to inspire confidence in them.]
+
+
+
+
+XVII
+
+"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM"
+
+
+We have heard Mr. Carruthers' declaration, based upon his survey of
+palaeontological botany, "The whole evidence is against Evolution, and
+there is none in favour of it."
+
+Remarkably enough, at almost the same period[274] Professor Huxley
+concluded a discussion of palaeontological evidence with a precisely
+contrary pronouncement--"The whole evidence is in favour of Evolution,
+and there is none against it." On other occasions, also, he distinctly
+maintained that it is just this line of enquiry which conclusively
+establishes Evolution as no longer a theory, but an historical fact. To
+such a conclusion, he tells us,[275] "an acute and critical-minded
+investigator is led by the facts of palaeontology;"--and, again, "If the
+doctrine of Evolution had not existed, palaeontologists must have
+invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of
+the remains of the Tertiary mammalia."
+
+Such declarations clearly challenge consideration, especially when it
+is remembered how strict were the views which Professor Huxley professed
+as to the necessity of proofs for our beliefs,--"that it is wrong for a
+man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
+unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
+certainty."[276]
+
+We therefore turn naturally to his lectures on Evolution, wherein he
+treats the palaeontological argument _ex professo_, and we find that his
+verdict is based upon a few selected instances, such as that of the
+reptilian birds already mentioned, which he considers favourable to
+Evolution, and one which he terms _demonstrative_,--namely that of the
+Horse. This he treats in some detail; in regard of it he delivers the
+positive judgment which we have just heard, and it therefore in a
+special manner demands our attention.
+
+As furnishing evidence for the history of the horse, two features are of
+special importance, his limbs, and his teeth. Of these we may confine
+our attention to the former, as being, at once, sufficient for our
+purpose, and within the scope of ordinary observation.
+
+The horse family, or _Equidae_, belong to the tribe of Ungulates, or
+hoofed animals, some points of whose anatomy require to be considered in
+relation to our own.
+
+Taking first the fore-limbs. What we call the "knee" of a horse is in
+reality the wrist,--the true knee, or rather elbow, being what we call
+the "shoulder." Below the knee comes the "cannon bone," corresponding to
+the middle bone of the hand, and below it the "pastern," "coronary," and
+"coffin" bones, representing the joints of the solitary middle-finger,
+while the hoof is its greatly enlarged and thickened nail. Similarly, in
+the hind-limbs; the "hock" is veritably the ankle, and again the lateral
+digits are suppressed, the middle toe alone remaining.
+
+It thus appears that an Ungulate such as the horse, is an extreme
+modification of the general Mammalian plan, his members being highly
+specialized for a certain kind of work. His leg and hoof, as the theory
+of genetic Evolution declares, have been gradually fashioned to their
+present shape from an original limb in the common Mammalian ancestor,
+which by other modifications has equally produced the totally different
+members possessed by other mammals.
+
+That the horse is descended from a race bearing more than one digit on
+each extremity, seems to be indicated by the splint-bones which are
+found on the cannon-bone of both fore and hind legs, and which represent
+the second and fourth finger and toe, and also by recorded occurrences
+of polydactyle horses, one of which has a distinguished place in history
+as Julius Caesar's charger.[277]
+
+That the animal as we now know him is the lineal descendant of various
+other ungulates, in whom the digits were gradually reduced from the
+normal number of five, to their present solitary representative,
+Professor Huxley and other Evolutionists hold to be demonstrated by the
+discovery in due succession of various equine specimens, in which this
+diminution is gradually exhibited.
+
+The remains of these animals are all found in _Tertiary_ strata, of
+which, it will be remembered, there are three great divisions, the
+_Eocene_, _Miocene_, and _Pliocene_, the first named being the most
+ancient, and the last the most recent.
+
+The genus _Equus_, or at least our modern horse, _Equus caballus_, can
+be traced no further back than the _Post-tertiary_ period. The
+succession of forms leading up thither commences at the bottom of the
+_Eocene_, and extends to the upper _Pliocene_.
+
+Following Professor Huxley's guidance, we trace the pedigree downwards,
+thus:
+
+     Firstly, there is the true horse. Next we have the American
+     Pliocene form, _Pliohippus_. In the conformation of its limbs it
+     presents some very slight deviations from the ordinary horse. Then
+     comes _Protohippus_, which represents the European _Hipparion_,
+     having one large digit and two small ones on each foot.... But it
+     is more valuable than _Hipparion_, for certain peculiarities tend
+     to show that the latter is rather a member of a collateral branch,
+     than a form in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward
+     order in time, is the _Miohippus_, [_Miocene_], which corresponds
+     pretty nearly with the _Anchitherium_ of Europe. It presents three
+     complete toes--one large median and two smaller lateral ones; and
+     there is a rudiment of that digit which answers to the little
+     finger of the human hand. The European record stops here: in the
+     American Tertiaries, the series of ancestral equine forms is
+     continued into the Eocene. An older Miocene form, _Mesohippus_, has
+     three toes in front, with a large splint-like rudiment representing
+     the little finger, and three toes behind. The _radius_ and _ulna_,
+     _tibia_ and _fibula_,[278] are distinct. Most important of all is
+     the _Orohippus_, from the Eocene. Here we find four complete toes
+     on the front limb, three toes on the hind-limb, a well developed
+     _ulna_, a well developed _fibula_.
+
+Here, when the lecture which we are considering was delivered, the
+series terminated:--and upon the facts as above given Professor Huxley
+thus commented:
+
+     Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge
+     extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely
+     that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
+     principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies
+     us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene
+     deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have
+     yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four
+     complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
+     front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind
+     foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be
+     more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in
+     which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole
+     series must have taken its origin.
+
+Finally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the
+lecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals,
+_Eohippus_, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might
+first be looked for. "This," adds Professor Huxley, "is what I mean by
+demonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is
+in favour of Evolution, and there is none against it."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+That these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all
+attention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are
+conclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many
+considerations require to be carefully weighed.
+
+(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other
+instances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really
+wanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species
+gradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have
+heard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated,
+for each belongs to a different _genus_,[279] which shows that the
+differences between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther
+apart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for
+both of these are classed in the genus _equus_,--or than the Bengal
+tiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus
+_felis_.
+
+These various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and
+if they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway,
+we ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those
+particular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very
+distinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge,
+yet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found,
+or, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were,
+can it be said that the story of the fossil _equidae_ furnishes
+convincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities
+these various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that
+affinities necessarily imply descent.
+
+There is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that
+Professor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of _Eohippus_,
+and specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present.
+In the same way, Professor Marsh[280] anticipates and describes a still
+more remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been
+found, he has provided an appellation, _Hippops_. But if either
+Professor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted
+that we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary
+outpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life
+whereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence
+that the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something
+analogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their
+discovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that
+their actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that
+it is very definitely fixed.
+
+(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of
+which Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him,
+_Equus caballus_, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced
+to America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been
+horses in America previously,--belonging to the genus _Equus_, perhaps
+even to the species _caballus_,--they had, however, been long extinct,
+and no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree
+given by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals,
+to which category belong all whose names terminate in _-hippus_, and
+these cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European
+horse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:[281]
+
+     In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,
+     beginning with the _Eohippus_ of the Eocene--an animal the size of
+     a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind--and these have
+     been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of
+     America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely
+     on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the
+     modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits
+     often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other
+     hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to
+     _Palaeotherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely
+     indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse
+     belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too
+     many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,
+     and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American
+     horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,
+     descendants of _Palaeotherium_, not of _Eohippus_; but if we had not
+     known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to
+     prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple
+     consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are
+     not of the nature of scientific evidence.
+
+(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much
+diversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines
+of ancestry favoured--(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited
+in our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr.
+Mivart,[282] (4) By Mr. Lydekker,[283] (5) In The _Evolution of the
+Horse_, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This
+last gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of
+the American Horse alone.
+
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   _Huxley._  |_British_      | _Mivart._   |_Lydekker._        |_American
+              |_Museum Case._ |             |                   | Museum._
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  Equus       |Equus          |Equus        |Equus              |Equus
+  Pliohippus  |               |             |                   |
+  Protohippus |Hipparion      |Hipparion    |Hipparion          |Hipparion
+              |               |Protohippus  |Protohippus        |Hypohippus
+  Miohippus   |               |Anchitherium |Anchitherium       |Merychippus
+  Anchitherium|Anchitherium   |             |{Anchilophus       |{Mesohippus
+  Mesohippus  |Protohippus    |Pachynolophus|{(_form allied to_)|{ (_2 species_)
+              |{Mesohippus    |             |                   |Epihippus
+  Orohippus   |{ (_2 species_)|             |{Hyracotherium     |Protorohippus
+  Eohippus    |Hyracotherium  |Phenacodus   |{Systemodon        |Eohippus
+              |               |             |                   |_An undiscovered
+              |               |             |                   | ancestor_
+              |               |             |                   | (Hippops)
+  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+It will be observed, that whereas _Hipparion_ is disallowed by Professor
+Huxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other
+genealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of _Equus_. Also that
+in all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used
+indifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that
+there is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would
+likewise appear that even the existence of _Eohippus_ himself is not
+beyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name
+always has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities
+give an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still
+remains to be discovered.
+
+There is something even more remarkable.
+
+
+DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIDAE.
+
+                        / +---------------------------------------------------+
+               Recent. {  | Equus Caballus.{*}                                |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  | Equus Stenonis.{*}{**} E. Sivalensis.{*}{**} &c.  |
+          Quaternary.  {  |     Hippidium.{**}  E. Americanus.{**} &c.        |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                        \ +---------------------------------------------------+
+                        / |                                                   |
+                       {  |                                                   |
+                       {  | Pliohippus.                                       |
+           /           {  |                                                   |
+          {  Pliocene. {  | Hipparion.{*}{**}  Protohippus.                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {            {  |                                                   |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / |                                                   |
+TERTIARY. {            {  |                                                   |
+          {   Miocene. {  | Hypohippus.  Parahippus.                          |
+          {            {  | Miohippus.  Anchitherium.{*}                      |
+          {            {  | Merychippus.                                      |
+          {            {  | Mesohippus.                                       |
+          {             \ |                                                   |
+          {               +---------------------------------------------------+
+          {             / | Epihippus.                                        |
+          {            {  | Orohippus.  Hyracotherium.{*}                     |
+          {    Eocene. {  | Protorohippus.   Pachynolophus.{*}                |
+          {            {  | Eohippus.                                         |
+           \           {  | Phenacodus.                                       |
+                        \ |                                                   |
+                          +---------------------------------------------------+
+                          |                                                   |
+                          | Hippops (undiscovered).                           |
+              SECONDARY.  |                                                   |
+                          |   No trace of Mammals except small                |
+                          |       Marsupials and Insectivora.                 |
+                          |                                                   |
+
+{* Indicates an inhabitant of the Old World. All others are American.}
+
+{** "Not in direct line of ancestry."}
+
+Huxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was
+delivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had
+declared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other
+genealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something
+really satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870--which he thus indicated
+as scientifically established--was totally different from that of 1876,
+and was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter.
+In 1870 the ancestry presented for _Equus_ consisted of _Hipparion_,
+_Anchitherium_, and _Plagiolophus_. Of these, _Hipparion_ was in 1876
+specifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: _Anchitherium_ was
+displaced by _Miohippus_, and although we are told that these creatures
+"correspond pretty nearly," the Horse cannot be descended from _both_,
+especially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally
+_Plagiolophus_ disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing
+could more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that
+an authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley
+should thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after
+information to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures
+happened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of _Hipparion_ to ancestral
+equine rank to be beyond dispute. "No one will deny," he wrote,[284]
+"that the _Hipparion_ is intermediate between the existing horse and
+certain older ungulate forms." Yet, as we see, this has been denied by
+his champion Huxley himself.
+
+(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various
+equine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed.
+As a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton,
+so that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really
+like, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to
+him. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of
+these as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse
+descended from it. Thus in _Hippidium_, an American genus closely allied
+to _Equus_, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate
+in claws.[285] One species of _Hippidium_ is known only by a solitary
+tooth. Of _Hyracotherium_ only the skull has been found: of _Orohippus_
+only parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of _Epihippus_, "only
+incomplete specimens."[286] Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking
+of the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses
+himself:[287]
+
+     Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated
+     the three animals [_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_, and _Equus_] are
+     filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before
+     I can arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is
+     proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It
+     appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the
+     testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I
+     must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not
+     be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate
+     transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every
+     part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the
+     stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....
+     Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual
+     shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.
+
+(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant
+particular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's
+ancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them
+that all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly
+assists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent.
+But as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the
+remoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. _Hyracotherium_,
+for instance, was "about the size of a hare,"[288] and according to
+Professor Cope, _Orohippus_ was the exact counterpart of this diminutive
+steed. The hypothetical _Hippops_, which Professor Marsh locates in the
+lower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,[289] now "be
+predicated with certainty;" and amongst other things it "probably was
+not larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller." Sometimes, so far as
+evidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was
+deterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus
+_Epihippus_, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than
+_Protorohippus_, found in the Middle Eocene; "but," says the American
+pamphlet,[290] "no doubt there were others of larger size living at the
+same time," which will scarcely be called convincing.
+
+[Illustration: "THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.
+
+"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'S _LECTURES ON EVOLUTION_.]
+
+(vi.) Worthy of notice also is "the remarkable circumstance that in the
+line of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of
+generically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries
+of both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that
+on both continents a parallel development of the same genera has
+simultaneously taken place."[291] And, as we have seen, while the
+American pedigree must have been entirely different from the European,
+it terminates equally in both continents with the genus _Equus_, if not
+actually with _Equus caballus_.[292] But, on any mechanical system of
+evolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along
+separate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.[293] Mr.
+Darwin did not conceive it possible that the same species should be
+produced twice over, "if even the very same conditions of life, organic
+and inorganic should recur,"[294] and the production of genuine horses,
+not only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different
+ancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr.
+Mivart,[295] "it follows from this generic identity, that classification
+will be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard,
+not the origin but the _outcome_ of development, whether of the
+individual or the species."
+
+(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of
+the above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound
+and substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last
+ungulate is lineally descended from the first,--_Equus_ from _Eohippus_,
+_Hyracotherium_, _Phenacodus_, or _Hippops_,--but that this first
+ungulate himself--whichever it was--has been, or at least may have been,
+similarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common
+parent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all
+these from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the
+infinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a
+period of time inconceivably long--immensely longer than that required
+to change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a
+highly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the
+nails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution
+would be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all
+Mammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while
+this development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian
+life, as raw material for its operations--and of this at least _some_
+trace should remain.
+
+But, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon
+earth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could
+possibly have sprung. _Phenacodus_, is in fact described as,[296] "The
+most primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered." He appears in the Lower
+Tertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,--the whole
+period covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of
+Tertiary mammals generally,--are practically devoid of mammalian remains
+altogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no
+more suppose _Phenacodus_ and the huge and various beasts who were his
+Eocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of
+shrew-mice.
+
+It also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental
+mammals first show themselves all over the world at the beginning of
+the Eocene,--while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems
+to have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of
+extreme diversities of structure:--as for instance Unguiculates (or
+clawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing
+animals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the
+Cetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:[297]
+
+     The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than
+     any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by
+     two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The
+     great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (_Zeuglodon_) which have
+     these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are
+     undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.
+     This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the
+     theory of Evolution.... "We may question," says Gaudry,[298] "these
+     strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their
+     progenitors--they leave us without reply." ... Their silence is the
+     more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have
+     been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages
+     of their development.
+
+The Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from
+the generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in
+quite another direction. But they appear with their wings fully
+developed, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.
+
+     Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson][299] that it is "natural to
+     suppose" that there must have been species existing previously with
+     shorter fingers[300] and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts
+     to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since
+     the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps
+     harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the
+     present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to
+     develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a
+     bat?
+
+Such instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties
+confined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when
+Anchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might
+claim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but
+Perissodactyles, or "odd-toed," like himself. These were the
+"Proboscideae"--"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a
+hand," in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other
+families, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of
+their race, for some of their Miocene specimens[301] are about half as
+large again as the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray
+Lankester has recently declared[302] that we now understand the genetic
+affinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into
+trunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement
+he adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain
+recently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called
+final which are based upon such partial evidence?[303] As M. Gaudry,
+convinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very
+matter:[304]
+
+     Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did
+     they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do
+     not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as
+     a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great
+     to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans
+     and animals of other orders as yet known to us.
+
+Such then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the
+genesis of the Horse, "the most famous instance of geological
+evidence"[305] which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to
+demonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be
+supposed to merit any such description. In view of the various
+difficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is
+satisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone
+are such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the _Equidae_.
+Even were the reality of this established to the full, how would such
+evidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of
+Organic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its
+history?[306]
+
+We find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares palaeontology to be
+the main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact
+contrary.
+
+     The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson][307] is
+     essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much
+     more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them
+     more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants
+     revealed by the rocks of the earth.
+
+Similarly Professor Williamson,[308] speaking of the efforts made to
+obtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: "Not only living, but
+extinct animals have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has,
+with his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the
+geological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one."
+
+More important than all,--Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the
+palaeontological evidence is far short of what it should be:--and
+attempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the
+geological record:--a plea to be more fully considered presently.
+
+We must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological
+record adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a
+slight specimen,--- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the
+apetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom
+of the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious
+Evolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a
+perfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days,
+in which "we may suppose" all the forms of after vegetation to have
+begun their career as seaweeds.[309]
+
+But in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he
+goes much further, and prints[310] an elaborate genealogy upon which
+Professor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he
+exhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an "Ancestral Series of
+the human pedigree," which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers will
+naturally suppose to be based upon palaeontological evidence. This
+wonderful genealogy stands thus:
+
+1. _Monera._ 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval
+animals. 4. Ciliated planulae (_Planaeada_). 5. Primeval Intestinal
+animals (_Gastraeada_). 6. Gliding Worms (_Turbellaria_). 7. Soft-worms
+(_Scolecida_). 8. Sack worms (_Himatega_). 9. _Acrania._ 10.
+_Monorrhina._ 11. Primeval fish (_Selachii_). 12. Salamander fish
+(_Dipneusta_). 13. Gilled Amphibia (_Sozobranchia_). 14. Tailed Amphibia
+(_Sozura_). 15. Primeval Amniota (_Protamnia_). 16. Primary Mammals
+(_Promammalia_). 17. _Marsupialia._ 18. Semi-apes (_Prosimiae_). 19.
+Tailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like
+Apes). 21. _Pithecanthropus_ (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking
+Man.
+
+     The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages][311] is that not
+     one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,
+     either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon
+     theory.[312] All species, existing or extinct, are said to have
+     been preceded by ancestral forms, which have disappeared leaving
+     no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill
+     represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up
+     the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is
+     sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types
+     themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them
+     [for example No. 7, The _Scolecida_, and No. 21,
+     _Pithecanthropus_].
+
+This kind of "Science" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will
+be sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:[313]
+
+     If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree
+     telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the
+     missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters
+     which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that
+     have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does
+     continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his
+     genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another
+     would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures
+     actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he
+     unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in
+     phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the
+     discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more
+     than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely
+     hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a
+     trace of it, or ever will.
+
+It is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the
+Riddles of the Universe.
+
+As Vogt himself wrote,[314] "We shall be compelled to patch and alter
+these genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set
+forth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism."
+
+And Du Bois-Reymond,[315] "Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is
+worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical
+historians."
+
+There remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted
+deficiency of palaeontological evidence.
+
+     The main cause [he writes][316] of innumerable intermediate links
+     [between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout
+     nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through
+     which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant
+     their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of
+     extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of
+     intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly
+     enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
+     stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
+     reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,
+     is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
+     against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
+     extreme imperfection of the geological record.
+
+How imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has
+no difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been
+defaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to
+our inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is
+continually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not
+appear that it need detain us long.
+
+It is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot
+prove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof
+of that theory which is required. Apart from palaeontological facts, as
+Professor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one
+way or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently
+complete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be
+scientifically established.
+
+Is it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that
+precisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which
+the Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which
+appears to contradict it?
+
+But, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record
+undoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what
+exists,--there still remains a vast mass of information which it has
+actually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as
+to the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If,
+as on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were
+in each line of descent no successive species or genera, made up of
+forms clustered round one point in the course of development more than
+another, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such
+isolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no
+single instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking
+them together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points
+in Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and
+apparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?
+
+It is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite
+inconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly
+unmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is
+sufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the
+Horse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for
+his Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed _Equus_
+did not exist during the earlier periods when _Eohippus_,
+_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_ and the rest of them were preparing the way
+for his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with
+others more ancient still which are set down as _their_ ancestors. But
+on what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains
+of the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less
+developed. If such a reason be sufficient--which we will not
+question--it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of
+intermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in the supposed
+pedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms
+there never were.
+
+It is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell
+the wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the
+right one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing
+us to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring
+lines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart
+tells us,[317] "It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared
+at first to indicate a _gradual transition_, which instances have been
+shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly
+anything of the kind." Another example of the same sort is furnished by
+the recent discovery of _Arsinoetherium_, a genus of very large and
+heavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered
+in the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large
+rhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we
+are told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and
+two smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite
+apart _from all other mammals_.
+
+It thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the
+bar of Palaeontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend
+is, Not proven.
+
+One thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic
+Evolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the
+development of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been
+found by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we
+know.
+
+As the Count de Saporta writes:[318]
+
+     Although the problem of "creation,"--formerly thought so simple,
+     and dated almost within human ken and the period of human
+     history--has now been relegated to a period too distant to be
+     imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the
+     problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been
+     shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been
+     altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more
+     and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to
+     investigate remains precisely the same.
+
+So too M. Blanchard:[319]
+
+     There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the
+     apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it
+     would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.
+     If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang
+     from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,
+     the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of
+     the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less
+     marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.
+
+And, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell,
+when he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory,
+wrote to him,[320]--"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much
+required as ever."
+
+
+
+
+XVIII
+
+TO SUM UP
+
+
+It is time to return to the point from which we started our whole
+enquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a
+solution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which
+we dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever,
+we saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no
+less than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning,
+and there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,--a cause
+capable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced.
+The material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,--organic life
+with all its infinite marvels and varieties--animal sensation--human
+intelligence--canons of beauty, the law of good and evil--all these must
+have existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence
+alone they could be derived.
+
+The Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we
+set ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science
+has found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe itself as
+they come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces
+which she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In
+particular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various
+significations, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine,
+from the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be
+said that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.
+
+The result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has
+immensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be
+accounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account
+for them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of
+Nature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than
+they were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of
+motion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational
+intelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order
+to which all Nature testifies,--all these are for Science utterly
+unsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must
+remain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be
+that any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the
+sublime and beautiful,--and above all--of the distinction between right
+and wrong.
+
+Here, then, Science stops,--confessing that she can be our guide no
+farther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions
+which are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name. Her domain
+is the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within
+that realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our
+intellectual need for causality.
+
+Are we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First
+Cause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the
+Agnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must
+not pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When
+Science fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,--thus only
+can our position still be scientific.
+
+But is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and
+monstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our
+senses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less
+certain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the
+monument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it
+contains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one
+adequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as
+the proverb says, "Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in
+it." From such conclusions there is no escape;--and since it is
+impossible to find the cause required within the world of material
+forces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must
+lie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Therefore, also, we know something concerning that Cause,--very little,
+perhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,--but still something
+very substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must
+possess every excellence which we discover in Nature,--all that she has,
+and more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of
+itself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is
+no power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in
+Nature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be
+supereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise
+of its might,--or it would be inferior to its own works.
+
+     Since there must have been something from eternity, [says
+     Bolingbroke][321] because there is something now, the eternal Being
+     must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;
+     for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce
+     entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must
+     exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or
+     whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to
+     conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a
+     cause.
+
+It is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion
+of the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they
+assume "as absolutely self-evident" the existence of a Deity who is the
+Creator and Upholder of all things.
+
+It will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which
+formidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the
+whole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did
+not Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own
+image and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be
+more conclusive than that?
+
+But what--after all--does "Anthropomorphism" mean in this connexion?
+Simply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is
+superhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are
+by the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression
+except such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can
+convince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some
+extent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no
+description of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination,
+except so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external
+world. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial
+being, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the
+object they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give
+it one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise
+they could not portray it at all. But however such images may be
+refined and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as
+conventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as
+different from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on
+the score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music
+is a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are
+heads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the
+Theistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into
+words we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and
+to borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the
+highest and noblest element found in the Universe,--namely our own
+intelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally
+possessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is
+sound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible
+excellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only
+when it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of
+an inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained
+in a pound,--but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper.
+According to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of
+energy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from
+observation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and
+light; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and
+obvious enough, often as it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver
+Lodge has lately put the matter:[322]
+
+     Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no
+     worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many
+     errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy
+     attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its
+     existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no
+     more.
+
+Or as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:[323]
+
+     That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself
+     thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or
+     express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained
+     be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than
+     the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the
+     more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason
+     disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of
+     the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as
+     existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,
+     independently of the mind of the investigator.
+
+The reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the
+force of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a
+fundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce
+the element of purpose in Nature is to deny the continuity of Natural
+law, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure,
+is equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that
+particular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may
+be supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of "the commoner
+and coarser forms of teleology," giving as an instance the supposition
+that eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors
+to see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less
+difficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any
+purpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;--but evidently it
+is taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature
+to be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or
+peacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has
+been said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it
+is through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes
+came to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there
+is of admitting the Creator into Creation. "It is still assumed on both
+sides," he wrote,[324] "that there must be something inexplicable or
+miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,"--and
+although we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of
+Theists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections
+on this head can only signify that it is with the laws of Nature as
+with a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and
+set it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as
+a legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge
+who administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete
+cases,--so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted,
+provides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He
+has instituted.
+
+So it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must
+conceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of
+all things, while Lord Kelvin declares[325] we are unmistakably shown
+through Nature that she depends upon one "ever-acting Creator and
+Ruler." It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds
+the modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs,
+indeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence
+by identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter
+qualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific
+experience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point
+as against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be "the most
+illogical form of metaphysics," and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, "not so
+much error as sheer nonsense." Theism avoids the error of either
+extreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction
+between the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His
+creatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and
+that in their every operation He is manifested.
+
+And so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world,
+and the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a
+Self-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a
+basis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need
+of causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as
+necessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only
+indirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.
+
+By no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck,
+the real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore
+represent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with
+them we may conclude.[326]
+
+     Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is
+     seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though
+     indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he
+     observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally
+     solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by
+     the consideration of His works....
+
+     Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of
+     things constituting a power subject to law, cannot therefore be
+     God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,
+     of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus
+     the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,
+     since these laws originate from Him.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX
+
+
+_A._ _Evolution and the lower forms of life_ (_p. 165_).
+
+A singularly instructive field for the study of the mutability or
+stability of species should be afforded by the lower forms of life, in
+which organization is reduced to a minimum, they being mere masses of
+protoplasm without even a containing envelope, while their nourishment
+is of the simplest. It would therefore appear that environment should be
+all-potent to modify them and produce specific modifications, while the
+extreme rapidity with which they propagate their kind, and that
+unisexually, ought to require no vast extent of time to make such
+transmutations apparent.
+
+It is found, however, on the contrary, that nowhere in organic nature
+does the type remain more rigidly persistent. Professor Macbride, for
+example, tells us,[327]
+
+"The Myxomycetae may be regarded as the organic group in which the forces
+of heredity,--whatever these forces may be--are at their maximum: they
+have responded as little as possible to the influence of their
+environment."
+
+To the same effect speaks Professor Paulesco of Bucharest, of other
+elementary organisms.[328]
+
+What is still more remarkable, these same organisms are extremely
+sensitive to altered conditions of environment, which have a direct and
+immediate influence, gravely modifying their morphological and
+physiological characters, changes in respect of light, minute
+alterations of temperature, or the introduction of a new chemical
+substance, even in infinitesimal quantity, frequently causing them to
+assume forms very different from the specific type, and profoundly
+modifying their nutritive processes.
+
+Here, it was at first thought, when Pasteur revealed their history, is
+clear evidence of specific transformation. But he presently convinced
+himself and others that it is not so, for although liable to assume such
+polymorphic forms according to the conditions in which they find
+themselves, there is no alteration of specific nature, and if the
+original circumstances be restored, the original forms reappear--"une
+elasticite functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier a des
+conditions variees d'existence sans changer d'etre." (Pasteur.)
+
+As M. Duclaux adds:[329]
+
+"La notion d'espece ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilite est un
+caractere comme un autre, bien que plus difficile a inscrire dans la
+classification, et une espece est aussi bien definie par les
+sensibilites diverses qu'elle manifeste que par la petite liste des mots
+et de proprietes dans laquelle on croyait pouvoir autrefois enfermer
+toute son histoire.... La lien de l'espece c'est la loi qui preside a
+ces changements, et la variete des formes et des fonctions n'est pas du
+tout en contradiction avec l'unite de l'espece."
+
+
+_B._ _Note on Chap. XV. p. 203._
+
+Since the foregoing pages have been in type there has come to hand the
+New York _Literary Digest_ of January 23, 1904, containing the following
+article (p. 119).
+
+"ARE THE DAYS OF DARWINISM NUMBERED?"
+
+The recent death of Herbert Spencer lends special timeliness to the
+above topic, which is being actively debated just now in German
+theological circles. The immediate cause of the revival of interest in
+the present status of the Darwinian theory is found in a lengthy article
+by the veteran philosopher, Edward von Hartmann, which appears in
+Oswald's _Annalen der Naturphilosophie_ (vol. ii. 1903), under the title
+'Der Niedergang der Darwinismus' ('The Passing of Darwinism'). That the
+famous 'philosopher of the unconscious' is not prejudiced in favour of
+biblical views has been more than clear since the publication of his
+_Selbstzersetzung der Christentums_ ('Disintegration of Christianity')
+in 1874. Hartmann in his new article has this to say--
+
+'In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of
+savants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies,
+the new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In
+the eighties, Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an
+almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for
+the first time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were
+heard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming
+at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the
+twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are
+numbered. Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, Gustav
+Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann, Reinke, and many
+others.'
+
+These facts, according to Hartmann's view, while they do not indicate
+that the Darwinian theory is doomed, undermine its most radical
+features:
+
+'The theory of descent is safe, but Darwinism has been weighed and found
+wanting. Selection can in general not achieve any positive results, but
+only negative effects; the origin of species by minimal changes is
+possible, but has not been demonstrated. The pretensions of Darwinism as
+a pure mechanical explanation of results that show purpose are totally
+groundless.'
+
+Other scholars think that Hartmann does not do full justice to the
+reaction that has set in, particularly in Germany, against Darwinism.
+This sentiment is voiced by Professor Zoeckler, of the University of
+Greifswald, in the _Beweis des Glaubens_ (No. xi.), a journal which
+recently published a collection of anti-Darwinian views from German
+naturalists. He calls the article of Hartmann 'the tombstone-inscription
+[_Grabschrift_] for Darwinism,' and goes on to say:
+
+     'The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically
+     must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartmann's exposition nor
+     the authorities he cites have the force of moral conviction for the
+     claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is
+     not a scientifically demonstrated proposition, although descent in
+     an ideal sense can be made to harmonize with the biblical account
+     of creation.'
+
+Views of a similar kind are voiced in many quarters. The Hamburg savant,
+Edward Hoppe, has written a brochure, _Ist mit der Descendenz-Theorie
+eine religioese Vorstellung vereinbar?_ [Is the Theory of Evolution
+reconcilable with the Religious Idea?] in which he takes issue, in the
+name of religion, with the purely naturalistic type of Darwinian
+thought. The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwinian views is
+Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, who has not only discarded the
+mechanical conception of the origin of being, but the whole Darwinian
+theory. He recently delivered a course of lectures, entitled 'Die
+Darwin'sche Theorie,' which have appeared in book form in Leipsic. He
+comes to this conclusion: 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a
+single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result
+of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.'
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+From another article in the same journal (p. 116), entitled 'A Study of
+Creation,' the following paragraphs may be cited:
+
+     "The French have never been enthusiastic Darwinians. It is,
+     perhaps, not surprising, therefore, to find a French geologist, M.
+     Stanislas Meunier, arguing in the _Revue Scientifique_ (December
+     19) against all schools of transformism and stoutly maintaining
+     what is practically a doctrine of special creation. He admits that
+     living beings form a connected series; but the connexion, he
+     believes, is not one of physical descent, but inheres in something
+     outside of and pre-existent to the earth. He does not name it, but
+     he would probably not object to the inference that it is the mind
+     of a creator.
+
+     "M. Meunier gives at some length his reasons for rejecting
+     Darwin's, Lamarck's, and all other theories of transformism. All we
+     can be sure of, he thinks, is that, as in the case of the various
+     kinds of pottery, we have to do with an orderly development,
+     although he thinks it is not a development by descent. He closes,
+     thus:
+
+     "'Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis on the mechanism
+     of the production of living things; but it is, perhaps, a step in
+     advance only to come to the conclusion that the cause of life and
+     its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth; that it
+     is anterior to our world, just as are doubtless the laws of physics
+     and chemistry, which govern the relations of matter and force
+     throughout space.
+
+     "'The philosophy of science can lose nothing by the admission of
+     points of view that, far from narrowing our subjects of study,
+     enlarge them beyond all limits; and this is, perhaps, the occasion
+     to show once more to persons who are turning toward metaphysics in
+     their thirst for mystery, that they will find in pure science that
+     wherewith they may satisfy their legitimate aspirations.'"
+
+
+_C._ _Succession of Plant forms p. 220._
+
+Recent investigations have led to the remarkable discovery that many
+fern-like plants of the Carboniferous rocks, hitherto classed as
+Cryptogams, were in reality seed-bearers, and thus intermediate between
+Cryptogams and Cycads, the most primitive of existing seed-plants. They
+have accordingly been placed in a special group "Cycadofilices," or
+"Fern-Cycads," and regarded as transitional types, the view that they
+are the remains of a natural bridge connecting the Ferns with the
+Gymnosperms having received wide support,[330] and at first sight this
+conclusion would appear natural and obvious. But here, as in other
+cases, the difficulty is that the seeds which have been found are all
+fully developed; there are none in the intermediate stages between true
+spores and true seeds; we have the finished article, but no trace of
+seeds in the making; which upon any theory of evolution must have been
+exceedingly numerous. Hence Dr. Scott tells us:[331]
+
+"The important discoveries of the seeds of the Pteridosperms scarcely
+touch the question of descent, for these organs are of too advanced a
+type to throw light on the probable derivation of the group."
+
+In this instance, therefore, as in others, it remains true that in no
+case is any trace found of rudimentary character in the earliest fossil
+specimens of any class.
+
+It is undoubtedly a further puzzle that some of the Carboniferous
+cryptogams which did not bear real seeds, yet simulated them, a habit
+not easily explained on evolutionary principles.
+
+
+_D._ _The Course of Evolution._
+
+The evidence of Professor Vines quoted in the text (pp. 202, 237)
+receives a remarkable confirmation from that of Dr. Smith Woodward,
+Keeper of Geology in the National Museum of Natural History. Speaking
+before the International Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis,
+U.S.A., September 22nd, 1904, he thus touched upon the same question,
+which he illustrated especially from the history of fossil fishes, which
+he has made his special study.[332]
+
+     "It must be confessed that repeated discoveries have now left faint
+     hope that exact and gradual links will ever be forthcoming between
+     most of the families and genera. The 'imperfection of the record,'
+     of course, may still render some of the negative evidence
+     untrustworthy; but even approximate links would be much commoner in
+     collections than they actually are if the doctrine of gradual
+     evolution were correct. Palaeontology, indeed, is clearly in favour
+     of the theory of discontinuous mutation, or advance by sudden
+     changes, which has lately received so much support from the
+     botanical experiments of H. de Vries.
+
+     "Further results obtained from the study of fossils have a bearing
+     even on the deepest problems of Biology, namely, those connected
+     with the nature of life itself. For instance, it is allowable to
+     infer, from the statements already made, that the main factor in
+     the evolution of organisms is some inherent impulse--the 'bathmic
+     force' of Cope--which acts with unerring certainty whatever be the
+     conditions of the moment."
+
+
+_E._ _Pedigree of the Horse._
+
+Some recent evidence on this subject certainly does not clear away the
+difficulties set forth in the text.
+
+From _Nature_, Sept. 8, 1904, p. 474.
+
+     "Professor Osborn (in a lecture before the British Association)
+     mentioned that more than a hundred more or less complete skeletons
+     of horses and horse-like animals had been found in North America.
+     He thought he had established the fact that horses were
+     polyphyletic, there being four or five contemporary series in the
+     Miocene, but that the direct origin of the genus _Equus_ in North
+     America was not established with certainty."
+
+Professor Sedgwick, _Student's Text Book of Zoology_, p. 599.
+
+     "Much has been written on the ancestry of the horse. It has been
+     maintained by many authors that a continuous series of forms
+     connecting it with the four-toed, brachyodont Hyracothoridae of the
+     Eocene has been discovered, and that here if anywhere a
+     demonstrative historical proof has been obtained of the doctrine of
+     organic evolution. Without desiring in the smallest degree to
+     impugn that doctrine, it may be permitted us here to examine rather
+     closely the view that the series of forms which recent
+     palaeontological research has undoubtedly brought to light
+     constitute that historical proof which has been claimed for them."
+
+[After an examination of the structural characters of these intermediate
+forms, viz., _Pliohippus_, _Protohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Miohippus_,
+_Mesohippus_, _Orohippus_, and _Hyracotherium_, the author proceeds]:
+
+     "So far as the characters mentioned are concerned, we have here a
+     very remarkable series of forms which at first sight seem to
+     constitute a linear series with no cross-connections. Whether,
+     however, they really do this is a difficult point to decide. There
+     are flaws in the chain of evidence, which require careful and
+     detailed consideration. For instance, the genus _Equus_ appears in
+     the Upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene
+     age. It has, however, been maintained that these beds are in
+     reality Lower Pliocene, or even Upper Pliocene. It is clear that
+     the decision of this question is of the utmost importance. If
+     _Equus_ really existed in the Upper Miocene, it was antecedent to
+     some of its supposed ancestors. Again in the series of equine
+     forms, _Mesohippus_, _Miohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Protohippus_,
+     which are generally regarded as coming into the direct line of
+     equine descent, Scott[333] points out that each genus is, in some
+     respect or other, less modified than its predecessor. In other
+     words, it would appear that in this succession of North American
+     forms the earlier genera show, in some points, closer resemblance
+     to the modern _Equus_ than to their immediate successors. It is
+     possible that these difficulties and others of the same kind will
+     be overcome with the growth of knowledge, but it is necessary to
+     take note of them, for in the search after truth nothing is gained
+     by ignoring such apparent discrepancies between theory and fact."
+
+Besides the structure of limbs and teeth, another argument for the
+descent of the horse has been drawn from certain phenomena of
+colouration. Stripings are found not unfrequently to occur in the legs
+and withers, which Darwin took for a reversion to the character of a
+very remote ancestor, the common parent, in fact, of horses and asses,
+which he supposed to have been striped all over like a zebra. Like other
+such common ancestors, this hypothetical animal had never been seen, but
+was thought to be most nearly represented by the Kathiwar horse, with
+stripes on a dun ground, a specimen of which is exhibited as
+illustrating the hypothesis in the National Museum of Zoology.
+
+Recently, however, Professor Ridgeway, who has devoted special attention
+to the problem, has satisfied himself that there is no sufficient
+foundation for these suppositions. He thus sums up the evidence which he
+has been able to collect:[334]
+
+     "Darwin's view that the original ancestor of the Equidae was a
+     dun-coloured animal, striped all over, was based, not merely on the
+     occurrence of stripes in horses, but on his belief that such
+     stripes were common in dun horses, and that there was a tendency in
+     horses to revert to dun colour. But it must be confessed that the
+     facts do not warrant his conclusion.... It is clear that stripes
+     are at least as often a concomitant of dark as of dun colour.
+     Moreover, if Darwin's hypothesis of a dun-coloured ancestor with
+     stripes is sound, dark colours such as bay and brown must be of
+     more recent origin, and accordingly there ought to be a great
+     readiness on the part of a progeny of a light-coloured animal when
+     mated with a dark to revert to the light. But Professor Ewart's
+     zebra stallion has never been able to stamp his own peculiar
+     pattern or his own colours on his hybrid offspring. The ground
+     colour has been determined by the dams of the hybrids."
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+_Abiogenesis_, 49-51
+
+_AEtiology_, 197
+
+Agnosticism, Huxley's first principle of, 4
+  Its fundamental principle unreasonable, 272
+
+American Museum and the pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Amphibians, embryology, 195
+
+"Anthropomorphism," 274, 275
+
+_Archaeopteryx_, 171
+
+_Archebiosis_, 53
+
+Argus pheasant, ornamentation, 175
+
+_Arsinoetherium_, 267
+
+Atlantic cable, an illustration from, of chance and purpose, 115
+
+Atoms, 37, 41, 88, 89, 90, 136
+
+Augustine, St.--on creation _causaliter et seminaliter_, 141, 207
+
+_Axolotl_, 195
+
+
+Baden-Powell, Prof.--on the nature of the First Cause, 276
+
+Bastian, Dr. H. C.--on spontaneous generation, 21, 50, 53
+
+_Bathybius Haeckelii_, 21
+
+Batrachians, appearance of, 225
+
+Bats, an evolutionary puzzle, 229, 257
+
+Bee, cell-making instinct, 156, 179
+
+Bickerton, Prof.,--on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+_Biogenesis_, 49, 50
+
+Blanchard, M.--on variation, 164;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 181;
+  on fecundity as a factor in survival, 188;
+  on the problem of creation, 268
+
+Bolingbroke, Viscount,--on the nature of the first cause, 273
+
+Bridgman, Laura, 77
+
+Bunsen, Chevalier,--on animal sounds and language, 74
+
+Butler, Bishop,--on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, 100
+
+
+Carruthers, Mr. W.--on specific stability of _Salix polaris_, 164;
+  on classification of plants, 214;
+  on the geological record, 216, 265;
+  on past history of plant-life, 216 _seq._; on
+  an assertion of Haeckel's, 221;
+  on the evidence supplied by fossil plants, 223
+
+Case,  Prof.--on the meaning of "fortuitous," 125
+
+Causation, principle of, 2, 87, 94, 107
+
+Cause, the First. See _First Cause_
+
+Chance, 110 _seq._, 151, 174
+
+Cicero--on the evidence for a Deity, 103
+
+Clerk-Maxwell, Prof.--on force and energy, 23n;
+  on Molecules, 90, 104;
+  on evidence of design, _ibid._
+
+Clifford, Prof. W. K.--on design in Nature, 101
+
+Clodd, Mr. E.--on atoms, 41
+
+Comte, Auguste--on materialism, 278
+
+Consciousness, origin of, 67
+
+_Cosmos_ and its Cause, 86 _seq._
+
+Croll, Mr.--on force and its determination, 94-96
+
+Crookes, Sir W.--on renovation of energy, 26;
+  on radium and radio-activity, 42, 43
+
+Cryptogamous plants, fossil history, 219
+
+Crystallization, 63, 64
+
+
+Darwin, Mr.--on the "law of continuity," 57;
+  on spontaneous generation, 58;
+  on the mental gulf between man and brute, 71;
+  on the origin of language, 79, 178;
+  on "creation," 91;
+  on the structure of the eye, 91;
+  on chance as a factor of the world, 116;
+  on pain and suffering as an objection to design, 119;
+  disclaims achievements attributed to him, 150;
+  his system, 153 _seq._ (see _Darwinism_);
+  his mode of arguing, 178;
+  dogmatism, 179;
+  pleads lack of knowledge as an argument, 182;
+  on single origin of every species, 210, 254;
+  on genealogy of the Horse, 259;
+  on the imperfection of the geological record, 264
+
+Darwinism, 149 _seq._;
+  false representations of, 149-151;
+  sketch of system, 151-157;
+  facts favouring, 158-160;
+  difficulties of, 160 _seq._;
+  explains no origins, 161;
+  ignores the prime factor, _ibid._;
+  improbabilities, 166, 173;
+  does not explain initial developments, 170 _seq._;
+  nor artistic ornamentation, 175;
+  specious arguments too easily forthcoming, 177;
+  does not account for organic progression, 187;
+  scientific opinions concerning, 198 _seq._, 281
+
+Dawson, Sir J. W.--on the first origin of life, 208;
+  on the history of animal life, 223; on genealogy of the _Equidae_, 247;
+  of the _Cetacea_, 257;
+  of bats,
+  258;
+  on lack of palaeontological evidence for evolution, 260
+
+Design, evidence of, in Nature, 90, 97 _seq._;
+  Kant on the necessity of, 150
+
+Determination of force, its necessity, 94-96, 114
+
+Determinism of the will, 81 _seq._
+
+Development of organic types, 146
+
+Dicotyledons, appearance of, 220
+
+Diderot--on evidence of intelligence in Nature, 125
+
+_Dinotherium_, classification of, 259 n
+
+Dogs, their vocal expression of emotions, 73
+
+Du Bois-Reymond, Herr,--on the "Seven Enigmas," 31-33;
+  on the progress of human development, 68, 69;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+_Dysteleology_, 190
+
+
+Ear, structure of, 93
+
+_Electrons_, 42
+
+Elephant and Tortoise of Hindu astronomy, 107
+
+Embryology and Evolution, 158-160, 192 _seq._
+
+"Energy," 23; conservation of, _ibid._;
+  dissipation of, 24 _seq._;
+  renovation of, 26-28
+
+"Enigmas, the Seven," 32
+
+_Entropy_, 25
+
+_Equidae_. See _Horse_
+
+Ether, a constituent of the universe, 36
+
+Evil, Origin of, the darkest of mysteries, 120
+
+"Evolution," different meanings of term, 8;
+    as an operative law, 10-14;
+    eternal, 11;
+    as a philosophy, 22 _seq._;
+    formula of, 145
+  As a process, 45 _seq._
+  Organic, 142 _seq._;
+    essential characters of theory, 147, 206;
+    nature of evidence required, 208 _seq._;
+    history of in vegetable and animal kingdoms, 216 _seq._
+
+Eye, origin of, 91, 154
+  Helmholtz, on defects of, 91 n.;
+    structure of, 155 n.;
+    evolution of, 168
+
+
+Fabre, M.--on Darwin's facts, 200 n.;
+  on our ignorance of Nature, 203
+
+Faraday, Prof.--on gravitation, 125
+
+Final causality (Teleology), 98 _seq._
+
+First Cause, the object of inference, 96, 97;
+  nature of as shown by reason, 270 _seq._
+
+Fish, appearance of, 225;
+  problems presented by, 233
+
+Flight, problem of, 93
+
+Flower, Sir W.--on the extinct American horse, 254
+
+Force, nature of, 23
+
+Free-will, Prof. Haeckel on, 33, 81;
+  Dr. Johnson on, 84
+
+Fuegians, mental likeness to ourselves, 72
+
+
+Garnett, Prof.--on force, 23
+
+Gaudry, M.--on ancestry of whales, 257;
+ of bats, 258;
+ of proboscidians, 259
+
+Genera and species, 244 n.
+
+_Generatio aequivoca_, 65
+
+Generation, mysteries of, 123 _seq._
+
+Geological formations, succession of, 213
+
+Geological record, 216, 264, _seq._
+
+Giraffe, evolution of, 154
+
+Glass, fortuitously discovered, 115
+
+Goethe--on "iron law," 14
+
+Gore, Dr. G.--on machinery as excluding idea of design, 118
+
+"Grand Question," the, 96
+
+Grimthorpe, Lord (Sir E. Beckett)--on matter, 37; on the problem of flight, 93;
+  on evidences of purpose, 94;
+  on generation, 124;
+  on the structure of the eye, 155 n.
+
+Gymnosperms, appearance of, 219
+
+
+Haeckel, Prof. E.--on "rational view of the world," 10-14;
+  on the "magic word evolution," 16;
+  on scientific method, 18, 20;
+  on the law of substance, 13, 23;
+  on the conservation of energy, 23, 24, 26;
+  on the "Seven Enigmas," 33;
+  on the nature and properties of matter, 35, 39;
+  on the artificial manufacture of protoplasm, 59;
+  on free-will and determinism, 81;
+  on design in Nature, 90, 150;
+  on chance, 117;
+  on Monism, 128;
+  on annihilation as a desirable end, 130;
+  on the ultimate reality, 135;
+  unfounded claims on behalf of Darwin, 150;
+  bases arguments on lack of knowledge, 183;
+  on rudimentary organs and "Dysteleology," 190;
+  on single origin of every species, 210;
+  on the appearance of the _Apetalae_, 221;
+  invents geological "ante-periods," 236;
+  and intermediate forms, 261;
+  his pedigree of man, 261;
+  his method of solving the riddles of Nature, 264
+
+Heredity, 83, 99
+
+Herschel, Sir J.--on molecules as manufactured articles, 89;
+  on evidence of mind in Nature, 100;
+  on gravitation, 125
+
+_Hesperornis_, 171
+
+Heurtin, Marie, 77
+
+_Hippops_, 246, 252
+
+Hird, Mr. D.--on the omnipotence of Evolution, 14;
+  on transformations of force, 129
+
+Holland, Sir H.--on structure of ear, 93
+
+Homer, a "half-savage Greek," 69 n.
+
+_Homo alalus_, and _sapiens_, 81
+
+Horse, structure of, 94, 240
+  Genealogy of, 236, 241 _seq._
+
+Hudson, Dr.--on neglect of
+  study of present life in favour of evolutionary speculations, 185
+
+Humboldt, W. von--on human speech, 76
+
+Hutton, F. W.--on finite duration of the world, 2;
+  and of the universe, 28;
+  on dissipation of energy, 27 n.
+
+Huxley, Prof.--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on the nature of science, 5;
+  on "Laws of Nature," 16-18;
+  on Evolution as a philosophy, 21, 22;
+  on matter, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on faith and verification, 47;
+  on the fundamental principle of Evolution, 48;
+  on spontaneous generation, 50-54;
+  on protoplasm, 59, 60;
+  on structure of the Horse, 93;
+  on theism and creation, 100;
+  on teleology, 102;
+  on theism and chance, 103;
+  on the non-existence of chance, 111;
+  on seeming waste in nature, 121;
+  on mind and matter, 133;
+  on Saurian birds, 172;
+  on _Dysteleology_, 191;
+  on embryology and aetiology, 197;
+  on the Darwinian theory, 200, 201;
+  on facts as the only sound basis of theory, 204;
+  on the fundamental doctrine of organic evolution, 206;
+  on evolutionary evidence, 235;
+  on Haeckel's "Ante-periods," 236;
+  claims palaeontological evidence as demonstrative of Evolution, 239, 261;
+  his pedigree of the Horse, 236, 242 _seq._;
+  discussed, 244 _seq._
+
+_Hydra_, structure of, 146
+
+
+_Icthyornis_, 171
+
+_Inertia_, a property of matter, 39
+
+Inference, 5 n.; 96, 272
+
+Insects, insular, as an argument for Natural Selection, 154, 167
+
+Invertebrate life, history of, 225
+
+
+Johnson, Dr.--on free-will, 84
+
+Julius Caesar, his polydactyle charger, 241
+
+
+Kant--on necessity of design, 150
+
+Keller, Miss 77
+
+Kelvin, Lord (Sir W. Thomson),--on the dissipation of energy, 25, 26;
+  his Law of Parsimony, 98;
+  on science and theism, 104, 278
+
+
+Laing, Mr. S.--on matter and motion, 35
+
+Lamarck--on Nature's witness to God, 279
+
+Language, our "Rubicon," 73;
+  distinctively human, 73-78;
+  essential character, 74;
+  theories as to origin, 79
+
+Lankester, Prof. Ray--on evolution of _Proboscideae_, 259
+
+Laws of Nature--what? 16,
+  17, 86;
+  expressions of creative intelligence, 123, 277
+
+Lewes, Mr.--on Laws of Nature, 86
+
+Liddon, Canon--on Laws of Nature, 16
+
+Life had a beginning, 46;
+  origin of, 46-66;
+  laws of, 90
+
+Link forms wanting in Nature, 208 _seq._, 228 _seq._
+
+Lodge, Sir O.--on non-purposive Evolution, 202;
+  on anthropomorphism and the First Cause, 276
+
+Lydekker, Mr. R.--on pedigree of the Horse, 248
+
+Lyell, Sir C.--on the need of creation, 269
+
+
+Mallock, Mr. W.--on human conduct, 139
+
+Mammals, appearance of, 226;
+  problems suggested by, 255
+
+Man, faculties, 71 _seq._;
+  appearance of, 227
+
+Marsh, Prof.--on Evolution, 47;
+  on _Hippops_, 252
+
+Marshall, Prof. Milnes--on the teachings of Evolution, 15;
+  on embryology, 159;
+  on Haeckel's treatment of the same, 195
+
+Marsupials, first appearance, 226
+
+_Materia Prima_, 42 n
+
+Matter, 35;
+  indestructibility, 13, 23;
+  properties, 36 _seq._;
+  constitution, 37, 41 _seq._, 135;
+  and motion, 39;
+  dissolution of, 43;
+  and mind, 131 _seq._
+
+Max Mueller, Prof.--on language, 73, 75
+
+Mendeleeff's Periodic Law, 88
+
+Mind and matter, connexion of, 131 _seq._
+
+Mivart, Mr. St. G.--on the gulf between man and brute, 72;
+  on the essence of language, 74;
+  on theories as to its origin, 79;
+  on the ease with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on embryology of Salamander, 193;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with theory of Evolution by minute and gradual modification, 228, 230;
+  on evolution of the Horse, 255;
+  on the failure of apparent links, 267
+
+Mole, evolution of, 181
+
+Molecules, 88;
+  "manufactured articles," 89;
+  Clerk-Maxwell on, 90, 104
+
+Monism, 126 _seq._, 278;
+  and morality, 137;
+  and Truth, 138
+
+Monocotyledons, appearance of, 219
+
+Motion, as a property of matter, 39
+
+_Myriadism_, a better term for _Monism_, 136
+
+
+"Natural Selection," what it is, 152 _seq._;
+  its powers discussed, 165 _seq._;
+  can produce nothing, 168;
+  a misnomer, 174. See _Darwinism_.
+
+"Nature," 6
+
+Nebular hypothesis, 11, 45, 48
+
+Newman, Cardinal--on the nature of laws, 17;
+  on law and causality, 99
+
+Newton, Sir I., his laws of motion, 39;
+  on evidence for theism, 103
+
+_North British_ Reviewer--on the limits of variation, 162;
+  on the facility with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;
+  on Darwinism and geographical distribution, 184;
+  on the "maybe's" of Darwinism, _ibid._;
+  on incompatibility of geological evidence with evolutionary theory, 228
+
+
+Obrecht, Martha, 77
+
+_Ontogeny,_ 83 n.
+
+Organic progression--and Darwinism, 186;
+  not evidenced by palaeontology, 234
+
+Organs, vestigial or rudimentary as an argument for evolution, 158, 189
+
+_Origin of Species_, appearance of, 151
+
+Owen, Sir R.--on the _Archaeopteryx_, 172
+
+
+Pain and suffering, as an objection to Design, 119, 121
+
+Palaeontology--the only sound basis for evolutionary theory, 204;
+  its evidence adverse to progressive developments, 234
+
+Paley--his "watch argument" disproved by machine-made watches, 118
+
+Pasteur, M.--on spontaneous generation, 50;
+  on initial temperature of life, 57 n.
+
+Peacock's feathers and Natural Selection, 155 n., 175
+
+Perrier, M. E.--on the evidence for Evolution, 237
+
+Pettigrew, Mr.--on wings of birds, 93
+
+_Phylogeny_, 83 n.
+
+_Prothyle_, 42
+
+Protoplasm, 59-63
+
+Purpose and natural laws, 122
+
+
+Quatrefages, M. de--on life and non-life, 63;
+  on crystallization, 64;
+  on variation in Nature, 162;
+  on Darwinian argumentation, 180, 182, 183;
+  on embryology, 194;
+  on absence of intermediate forms in Nature, 212, 229
+
+Quinton, M.--new doctrine of life development, 57 n.
+
+
+_Rana opisthodon_--embryology, 195
+
+Rayleigh, Lord--on atheistic science, 105;
+  on scientific authority, 109
+
+Reason generates speech, not _vice versa_, 76
+
+Reptiles, age of, 226
+
+Reptilian birds, 171
+
+Rivarol--on God and the world, 279
+
+Robin, M. Ch.--on Darwinism, 198
+
+Romanes, Prof.--on continuity and universality of natural causation, 29, 30;
+  on origin of language, 79;
+  on Monism, 129;
+  on the inadequacy of Natural Selection, 201;
+  on jealousy of admitting the Creator into creation, 277
+
+Roscoe, Sir H.--on artificial production of protoplasm, 62
+
+
+Salamander, embryological features, 193
+
+_Salix polaris_, its specific stability, 164, 222
+
+Saporta, Comte de--on parallel development of animal and vegetable life, 228;
+  on the problem of Creation, 268
+
+Schoolmen, the--on relation of soul and body, 132
+
+Scorpion, maternal and unfilial instincts, 122
+
+Selous, Mr. E.--exemplifies Monistic doctrines, 139 n.
+
+Sensation and consciousness,--origin of, 67
+
+Snakes, embryological features, 194
+
+Species, on evolutionary principles must each derive from a single origin, 210;
+  isolation of, 211;
+  and genera, 244 n.
+
+Specific stability in Nature, 164
+
+Spencer, Mr. Herbert--on the beginning of life, 56;
+  his "Formula of Evolution," 145;
+  on the process of organic evolution, 147
+
+Spontaneous Generation. See _Life, origin of_
+
+Stephen, Sir L.--on materialism, 78
+
+Stewart, Prof. Balfour--on finite duration of the world, 1;
+  on dissipation of energy, 25.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_
+
+Stewart and Tait--on self-evidence of theism, 104, 273
+
+Stirling, Mr.--on protoplasm, 59, 61
+
+Stokes, Sir G. G.--on evidence for design, 104
+
+Suarez--on creative power and natural law, 207
+
+Substance, law of, 13, 14, 22, 23, 33, 41, 118
+
+Survival of the fittest, and organic progression, 186
+
+
+Tait, Prof. P.--On the scope of science, 18, 20;
+  on force and energy, 23 n.;
+  on the properties of matter, 39;
+  on "pseudoscience," 40;
+  on scientific methods, 47;
+  on mechanical theories of life, 65.
+  See also _Stewart and Tait_.
+
+Teleology--98 _seq._
+
+Theism, 97 _seq._, 277
+
+Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W.--on protoplasm, 60-62
+
+_Thyroid_ gland--its lesson, 191 n.
+
+Time, as a factor in Evolution, 80, 169
+
+Transformism, 142, etc.
+  See _Evolution, organic_
+
+_Triton alpestris_, 195
+
+Tyndall, Prof.--on the material origin of life, 38;
+  on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on scientific method, 47;
+  on spontaneous generation, 54-56;
+  on the potentialities of matter, 54;
+  on mind and matter, 133
+
+
+Ungulates, structure of limbs, 241
+
+
+Variation, the basis of Darwin's calculations, 162;
+  its limitations, _ibid._;
+  minute at each stage, 165
+
+_Verbum mentale_, 76
+
+Vines, Prof. S. H.--on speculations and facts, 185;
+  on the present status of the Darwinian theory, 202;
+  on our present knowledge, 237
+
+Virchow, Prof.--on the beginning of life, 46;
+  on spontaneous generation, 65
+
+Vogt, Carl--on embryology, 194;
+  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264
+
+
+Wallace, Mr. A. R.--on breaches of natural causation, 64;
+  on the origin of life, _ibid._;
+  on the origin of animal life, 69, 70
+
+Weismann, Prof.--on our intellectual need for causality, 101
+
+Weldon, Prof.--on Huxley's scientific method, 21, 197
+
+Whales, appearance of, 257
+
+Whitney, Prof.--on origin of language, 79
+
+Will, the only cause known to us, 99, 100.
+  See also _Free-will_
+
+Williamson, Prof. W. C.--on missing links, 231;
+  on an unrecognized factor in life-developments, 232;
+  on the geological history of fishes, 233;
+  on genealogy of the _equidae_, 251;
+  on lack of palaeontological support for the Evolution theory, 260
+
+Wings, as machines, 93
+
+Wollaston, Mr.--on "Nature" as an agent, 108
+
+World, beginning of, 1
+
+
+_Zeuglodon_, 257
+
+
+
+
+A LIST OF WORKS
+
+MAINLY BY
+
+ROMAN CATHOLIC
+
+WRITERS
+
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+                                                   PAGE
+
+THE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY                               2
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH                                   3
+
+FOR THE CLERGY AND STUDENTS                           4
+
+BIOGRAPHY                                             6
+
+HISTORY                                               8
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHURCH                          8
+
+EDUCATIONAL                                           9
+
+STONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES                      10
+
+POETRY, FICTION, ETC.                                10
+
+NOVELS BY M. E. FRANCIS (MRS. FRANCIS BLUNDELL)      11
+
+WORKS BY THE VERY REV. CANON SHEEHAN, D.D.           11
+
+WORKS BY CARDINAL NEWMAN                             12
+
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
+
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
+
+91-93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
+
+8 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY
+
+303 BOWBAZAR STREET, CALCUTTA.
+
+1909
+
+The Westminster Library.
+
+A Series of Manuals for Catholic Priests and Students.
+
+Edited by the Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD, President of St. Edmund's
+College, and the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE TRADITION OF SCRIPTURE: its Origin, Authority and Interpretation. By
+the Very Rev. WILLIAM BARRY, D.D., Canon of St. Chads, Birmingham. Crown
+8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By the Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, Bishop of
+Newport. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS: An Introduction to Hagiography. From the
+French of Pere H. DELEHAYE, S.J., Bollandist. Translated by Mrs. V. M.
+CRAWFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE PRIEST'S STUDIES. By the Very Rev. THOMAS SCANNELL, D.D., Canon of
+Southwark Cathedral, Editor of _The Catholic Dictionary_. Crown 8vo. 3s.
+6d. _net._
+
+The following Volumes are in Preparation:--
+
+THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR. By the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
+
+THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS. By the Rev. Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.
+
+THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. By the Right Rev. Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A.
+
+THE BREVIARY. By the Rev. EDWARD MYERS, M.A.
+
+THE INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. By the Rev. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
+
+THE MASS. By the Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Ph.D., D.D.
+
+
+The Catholic Church.
+
+THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WITHIN. With a Preface by His Eminence CARDINAL
+VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+LETTERS FROM THE BELOVED CITY. TO S. B. FROM PHILIP. By the Rev. KENELM
+DIGBY BEST. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+CONTENTS.--Why Philip writes these Letters to S. B.--S. B.'s
+Difficulties fully stated--The Good Shepherd--I come that they may have
+life--Feed my Lambs--Feed my Sheep--One Fold and One Shepherd--Christ's
+Mother and Christ's
+Church--Unity--Holiness--Catholicity--Apostolicity--Our Lady's
+Dowry--War--Pacification.
+
+LENT AND HOLY WEEK: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. By
+HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+BISHOP GORE AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. By Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 8vo.
+Paper covers, 6d. _net_; cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+ASPECTS OF ANGLICANISM; or, Some Comments on Certain Incidents in the
+'Nineties. By Mgr. JAMES MOYES, D.D., Canon of Westminster Cathedral.
+Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._ Paper Covers 2s. _net._
+
+*** _This book is a free comment from a Roman Catholic
+standpoint upon certain incidents in the religious life of Anglicanism
+in the 'Nineties. It deals incidentally with the Lambeth Judgment, and
+with the question of continuity. It represents the criticism which, from
+the point of view of history and theology, some of the later
+developments of Anglicanism would suggest to a Roman Catholic mind._
+
+DIVINE AUTHORITY. By J. F. SCHOLFIELD, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge,
+late Rector of St. Michael's, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+INFALLIBILITY: a Paper read before the Society of St. Thomas of
+Canterbury. By the Rev. VINCENT McNABB, O.P. Crown 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+_net._
+
+SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-DISCIPLINE. By the Rev. B. W. MATURIN. Crown
+8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+LAWS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+THE INNER LIFE OF THE SOUL. Short Spiritual Messages for the
+Ecclesiastical Year. By S. L. EMERY. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. _net._
+
+
+For the Clergy and Students.
+
+THE TRAINING OF A PRIEST: an Essay on Clerical Education. By the Rev.
+JOHN TALBOT SMITH, LL.D., President of the Catholic Summer School of
+America. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+SCHOLASTICISM, Old and New: an Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy,
+Mediaeval and Modern. By M. de WULF, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy
+and Letters, Professor at the University of Louvain. Translated by P.
+COFFEY, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Maynooth College, Ireland. 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By SYLVESTER JOSEPH HUNTER, S.J. Crown
+8vo. Three vols., 6s. 6d. each.
+
+THE SERMON OF THE SEA, and Other Studies. By the Rev. ROBERT KANE, S.J.
+Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
+
+STUDIES ON THE GOSPELS. By VINCENT ROSE, O.P., Professor in the
+University of Fribourg. Authorised English Version, by ROBERT FRASER,
+D.D., Domestic Prelate to H.H. Pius X. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE. By AUSTIN O'MALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.,
+Pathologist and Ophthalmologist to Saint Agnes's Hospital, Philadelphia;
+and JAMES J. WALSH, Ph.D., LL.D., Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the
+New York Polytechnic School for Graduates in Medicine. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+*** _The term "Pastoral Medicine" may be said to represent that
+part of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those
+divisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his
+practice. This book is primarily intended for Roman Catholic
+confessors._
+
+THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. By Rev. MICHAEL CRONIN, M.A., D.D., Ex-Fellow,
+Royal University of Ireland; Professor, Clonliffe College, Dublin. 8vo.
+
+Vol. 1., General Ethics. 12s. 6d. net.
+
+THE KEY TO THE WORLD'S PROGRESS: an Essay on Historical Logic, being
+some Account of the Historical Significance of the Catholic Church. By
+CHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper covers, 6d.
+
+*** _The object of this book is to give to the logic and
+history of Newman an economic or sociological setting, and thus to show
+that "for the explanation of World-history we must first have the true
+theory of the Christian Church and her life through eighteen centuries".
+Part I. states briefly the problems which the philosophy of history
+seeks to resolve. Part II. presents the solution offered by Christianity
+and takes the form of an historical analysis of the principles by which
+the Church has been guided in her relations with the world._
+
+"IN THY COURTS" (La Vocation a la Vie Religieuse). Translated from the
+French of LOUIS VIGNAT, S.J. By MATTHEW L. FORTIER, S.J. 18mo. 1s. 6d.
+_net._ In paper covers, 1s. _net._
+
+CORDS OF ADAM: a Series of Devotional Essays with an Apologetic Aim. By
+the Rev. THOMAS J. GERRARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+"I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bonds of
+love."--_Osee_ xi. 4.
+
+THE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER. An Enquiry how far Modern Science
+has altered the aspect of the Problem of the Universe. By JOHN GERARD,
+S.J., F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Popular Edition. Paper Covers. 6d.
+
+THE MONTH; A Catholic Magazine. Conducted by FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF
+JESUS. Published Monthly. 8vo. Sewed, 1s.
+
+INDEX TO THE MONTH, 1864-1908. Arranged under Subjects and Authors. 8vo.
+Cloth. 3s. 6d. _net._ Interleaved with Writing Paper. 5s. _net._
+
+
+Biography.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. DOMINIC, FOUNDER OF THE FRIAR PREACHERS. By AUGUSTA
+THEODOSIA DRANE. With 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
+
+THE HISTORY OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER COMPANIONS. With a
+Translation of her Treatise on Consummate Perfection. By the same
+Author. With 10 Illustrations. Two vols. 8vo. 15s.
+
+A MEMOIR OF MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D. (AUGUSTA THEODOSIA DRANE),
+some time Prioress Provincial of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters
+of St. Catherine of Siena, Stone. With portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+LIFE OF ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, DUCHESS OF THURINGIA. By the COUNT DE
+MONTALEMBERT, Peer of France, Member of the French Academy. Translated
+by FRANCIS DEMING HOYT. Large Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. _net._
+
+HISTORY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, Founder of the Congregation of the
+Mission (Vincentians), and of the Sisters of Charity. By Monseigneur
+BOUGAUD, Bishop of Laval. Translated from the Second French Edition by
+the Rev. JOSEPH BRADY, C.M. With an Introduction by His Eminence
+CARDINAL VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+HENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES. By ALICE SHIELD. With an
+Introduction by ANDREW LANG. With Photogravure Frontispiece and 13 other
+Illustrations. 8vo. 12s. 6d. _net._
+
+EXPLORERS IN THE NEW WORLD BEFORE AND AFTER COLUMBUS, and THE STORY OF
+THE JESUIT MISSIONS OF PARAGUAY. By MARION McMURROUGH MULHALL, Member of
+The Roman Arcadia. With pre-Columban Maps. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CARDINAL WISEMAN. By WILFRID WARD. With 3
+Portraits. Two vols. Cr. 8vo. 10s. _net._
+
+AUBREY DE VERE: a Memoir based on his unpublished Diaries and
+Correspondence. By the same Author. With Two Photogravure Portraits and
+2 other Illustrations. 8vo. 14s. _net._
+
+TEN PERSONAL STUDIES. By the same Author. With 10 Portraits. 8vo. 10s.
+6d. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--Arthur James Balfour--Three Notable Editors: Delane, Hutton,
+Knowles--Some Characteristics of Henry Sidgwick--Robert, Earl of
+Lytton--Father Ignatius Ryder--Sir M. E. Grant Duff's Diaries--Leo
+XIII.--The Genius of Cardinal Wiseman--John Henry Newman--Newman and
+Manning--Appendix.
+
+SOME PAPERS OF LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, 12th BARON, COUNT OF THE HOLY
+ROMAN EMPIRE, Etc. With a Preface by the Dowager LADY ARUNDELL OF
+WARDOUR. With Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+HISTORICAL LETTERS AND MEMOIRS OF SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, 1625-1793. By the
+Rev. W. FORBES LEITH, S.J. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2
+vols. Medium 8vo. 24s. _net._
+
+ESSAYS. By FATHER IGNATIUS RYDER. Edited by the Rev. F. BACCHUS. 8vo.
+
+CONTENTS.--_Biographical and Historical._ 1. A Jesuit Reformer and
+Poet--2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)--3. Savonarola--4.
+M. Emery--5. The Great Schism. _General._--6. Auricular Confession--7.
+The Pope and the Anglican Archbishops--8. Ritualism, Romanism, etc.--9.
+Some Ecclesiastical Miracles--10. Irresponsible Opinion--11. The Ethics
+of War--12. The Passion of the Past--13. Reminiscences of a Jail
+Chaplain.
+
+
+History.
+
+HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN NORTH AMERICA: Colonial and Federal.
+By THOMAS HUGHES of the same Society. Royal 8vo.
+
+Text. Volume I. From the First Colonization, 1580, till 1645. With 3
+Maps and 3 Facsimiles. 15s. _net._
+
+Documents. Volume I. Part I. Nos. 1-140 (1605-1838). 21s. _net._
+Documents. Volume I. Part II. [_In the Press._
+
+THE INQUISITION: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power
+of the Church. By the Abbe E. VACANDARD. Translated from the French by
+the Rev. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, C.S.P. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BISHOP CHALLONER, 1691-1781. By EDWIN H. BURTON,
+D.D., F.R.Hist.S., Vice-President of St. Edmund's College. With 34
+Portraits and other Illustrations. In two volumes. 8vo.
+
+THE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN ENGLAND, 1781-1803. By BERNARD WARD,
+F.R.Hist.S., President of St. Edmund's College, Ware. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s.
+_net._
+
+
+The Beginnings of the Church.
+
+A Series of Histories of the First Century.
+
+By the Abbe CONSTANT FOUARD, Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the
+Faculty of Theology at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated by GEORGE F. X.
+GRIFFITH.
+
+THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. A Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
+With an Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. With 3 Maps. Two vols. Crown
+8vo. 14s.
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. 1s. _net._ Paper Covers. 6d. _net._
+
+ST. PETER AND THE FIRST YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. With 3 Maps. Crown 8vo.
+9s.
+
+ST. PAUL AND HIS MISSIONS. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+THE LAST YEARS OF ST. PAUL. With 5 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 9s.
+
+ST. JOHN AND THE CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Educational.
+
+A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. By E. WYATT-DAVIES, M.A. With
+14 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OUTLINES OF BRITISH HISTORY. By the same Author. With 85 Illustrations
+and 13 Maps. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
+
+A HISTORY OF IRELAND FOR AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. From the Earliest
+Times to the Death of O'Connell. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. With specially
+constructed Map and 160 Illustrations, including Facsimile in Full
+Colours of an Illuminated Page of the Gospel Book of MacDurnan, A.D.
+850. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.
+
+_This is the authorised Irish History for Catholic Schools and Colleges
+throughout Australasia._
+
+HISTORICAL ATLAS OF INDIA, for the Use of High Schools, Colleges and
+Private Students. By CHARLES JOPPEN, S.J. 26 Maps in Colours. Post 4to.
+3s. net.
+
+DELECTA BIBLICA. Compiled from the Vulgate Edition of the Old Testament,
+and arranged for the use of Beginners in Latin. By a SISTER OF NOTRE
+DAME. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC. By G. H. JOYCE, S.J., M.A., Oxford, Professor of
+Logic at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._
+
+PARLEZ-VOUS FRANCAIS? OU LE FRANCAIS ENSEIGNE D'APRES LA METHODE
+DIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustre par N. M. W. Crown 8vo. 1s.
+
+GRAMMAR LESSONS. By the PRINCIPAL OF ST. MARY'S HALL, Liverpool. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+THE CLASS TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION. By the same Author. Crown
+8vo. 2s.
+
+QUICK AND DEAD? To Teachers. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+
+Stonyhurst Philosophical Series.
+
+Edited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.
+
+LOGIC. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+FIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+MORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown
+8vo. 5s.
+
+GENERAL METAPHYSICS. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
+
+PSYCHOLOGY, EMPIRICAL AND RATIONAL. By MICHAEL MAHER, S.J., D.Litt.,
+M.A. Lond. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+NATURAL THEOLOGY. By BERNARD BOEDDER, M.A., S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
+
+POLITICAL ECONOMY. By CHAS. S. DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
+
+
+Poetry, Fiction, etc.
+
+A MYSTERY PLAY IN HONOUR OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD. By the Rev. ROBERT
+HUGH BENSON. With Illustrations, Appendices, and Stage Directions. Cr.
+8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._
+
+Words only. With a few notes. 6d. net.
+
+STORIES ON THE ROSARY. By LOUISE EMILY DOBREE. Parts I., II., III. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d. each.
+
+A TORN SCRAP BOOK. Talks and Tales illustrative of the "Our Father". By
+GENEVIEVE IRONS. With a Preface by the Rev. R. HUGH BENSON. Crown 8vo.
+2s. 6d.
+
+MARIALE NOVUM: a Series of Sonnets on the Titles of Our Lady's Litany.
+By MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. Printed on hand-made paper, and
+bound in art green canvas, with cover design in blue and gilt, gilt top.
+Pott 4to. 3s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 5s. _net._
+
+ONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. WILFRID WARD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+OUT OF DUE TIME. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GREAT POSSESSIONS. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+
+Novels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell).
+
+SIMPLE ANNALS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+DORSET DEAR: Idylls of Country Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+LYCHGATE HALL: a Romance. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+CHRISTIAN THAL: a Story of Musical Life. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE MANOR FARM. With Frontispiece by Claude C. du Pre Cooper. Crown 8vo.
+6s.
+
+FIANDER'S WIDOW. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+PASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+YEOMAN FLEETWOOD. Crown 8vo. 3s. _net._
+
+Works by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.
+
+LISHEEN; or, The Test of the Spirits. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
+
+LUKE DELMEGE. A Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+GLENANAAR: a Story of Irish Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
+
+THE BLINDNESS OF THE REVEREND DR. GRAY; or, the Final Law: a Novel of
+Clerical Life. 6s.
+
+"LOST ANGEL OF A RUINED PARADISE": a Drama of Modern Life. Crown 8vo.
+3s. 6d.
+
+PARERGA: being a Companion Volume to "Under the Cedars and the Stars".
+Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. _net._
+
+EARLY ESSAYS AND LECTURES. Cr. 8vo. 6s. _net._
+
+CONTENTS.--_Essays._ Religious Instruction in Intermediate Schools--In a
+Dublin Art Gallery--Emerson--Free-Thought in America--German
+Universities (Three Essays)--German and Gallic Muses--Augustinian
+Literature--The Poetry of Matthew Arnold--Recent Works on St.
+Augustine--Aubrey de Vere (a Study). _Lectures._ Irish Youth and High
+Ideals--The Two Civilisations--The Golden Jubilee of O'Connell's
+Death--Our Personal and Social Responsibilities--The Study of Mental
+Science--Certain Elements of Character--The Limitations and
+Possibilities of Catholic Literature.
+
+
+Cardinal Newman's Works.
+
+1. SERMONS.
+
+PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR, from the
+"Parochial and Plain Sermons". Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, between 1826
+and 1843. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCOURSES TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+OCCASIONAL SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+2. TREATISES.
+
+THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+UNIVERSITY TEACHING considered in nine discourses. Being the First Part
+of "The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated". With a Preface by
+the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. _net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+A GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. AN INDEXED SYNOPSIS OF NEWMAN'S
+"GRAMMAR OF ASSENT". By the Rev. JOHN J. TOOHEY, S.J. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+3. HISTORICAL.
+
+HISTORICAL SKETCHES. Three vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+
+VOL. I.--The Turks in their Relation to Europe--- Marcus Tullius
+Cicero--Apollonius of Tyana--Primitive Christianity.
+
+VOL. II.--The Church of the Fathers--St. Chrysostom--Theodoret--Mission
+of St. Benedict--Benedictine Schools.
+
+VOL. III.--Rise and Progress of Universities (originally published as
+"Office and Work of Universities")--Northmen and Normans in England and
+Ireland--Mediaeval Oxford--Convocation of Canterbury.
+
+THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. Reprinted from "Historical Sketches". Vol.
+II. With a Preface by the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s.
+_net._ Leather, 3s. _net._
+
+4. ESSAYS.
+
+TWO ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture
+and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame? 6. An
+Argument for Christianity.
+
+ESSAYS, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two vols., with notes. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Mennais. 5.
+Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican
+Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Huntingdon. 10.
+Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Antichrist of Protestants.
+12. Milman's View of Christianity. 13. Reformation of the XI. Century.
+14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble.
+
+5. THEOLOGICAL.
+
+THE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+SELECT TREATISES OF ATHANASIUS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+TRACTS: THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+1. Dissertatiunculae. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
+Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.
+Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture.
+
+6. POLEMICAL.
+
+THE VIA MEDIA OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.
+Vol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. Vol. II. Occasional Letters
+and Tracts.
+
+DIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I.
+Twelve Lectures. Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed
+Virgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.
+
+PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+Pocket Edition. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 3s. 6d.
+_net._
+
+Popular Edition. 8vo. Sewed, 6d. _net._
+
+_The "Pocket" Edition and the "Popular" Edition of this book contain a
+letter, hitherto unpublished, written by Cardinal Newman to Canon
+Flanagan in 1857, which may be said to contain in embryo the "Apologia"
+itself._
+
+7. LITERARY.
+
+VERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+THE DREAM OF GERONTIUS. 16mo. Sewed, 6d. Cloth, 1s. _net._
+
+School Edition, with Introduction and Notes by Maurice Francis Egan,
+A.M., LL.D., Professor of English Language and Literature in the
+Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. With Portrait. Crown
+8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+Presentation Edition, with an Introduction specially written for this
+Edition by E. B(L). With Photogravure Portrait of Cardinal Newman, and 5
+other Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, bound in cream cloth, with gilt
+top. 3s. _net._
+
+With Fac-similes of the original Fair Copy and of portions of the first
+rough draft. Together with a Biographical Sketch of the Rev. John
+Gordon, of the Congregation of the Oratory, to whom the poem is
+inscribed, containing an appreciation by Cardinal Newman. Imperial
+folio. 31s. 6d. _net._
+
+*** _This issue is restricted to 525 copies, of which 500 are
+for sale._
+
+LOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+CALLISTA: A Tale of the Third Century. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
+
+
+8. DEVOTIONAL.
+
+MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. Part I. Meditations for the Month of May.
+Novena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. Meditations
+and Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. Part III. Meditations
+on Christian Doctrine. Conclusion. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._
+
+Also in Three Parts as follows. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. _net_ each.
+
+Part I. THE MONTH OF MAY.
+
+Part II. STATIONS OF THE CROSS.
+
+Part III. MEDITATIONS ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
+
+
+LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE
+ENGLISH CHURCH. With a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's
+request, by ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.
+
+ADDRESSES TO CARDINAL NEWMAN, WITH HIS REPLIES, 1879-81. Edited by the
+Rev. W. P. NEVILLE (Cong. Orat.). With Portrait Group. Oblong crown 8vo.
+6s. _net._
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] _Collected Essays_, i. 35.
+
+[2] _Lectures on Evolution_, Cheap Edition, p. 16.
+
+[3] _Conservation of Energy_, Sec. 210, p. 153.
+
+[4] F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., _The Lesson of Evolution_ (1902), pp. 9-11.
+
+[5] _Nineteenth Century_, February, 1889. p. 173.
+
+[6] This term is now applied almost exclusively to _physical science_,
+or that whose province is the observation of phenomena and inferences
+directly deducible from them. To avoid confusion, this sense of the word
+"Science" will be here adopted: it is nevertheless objectionable
+inasmuch as it implies that--as Professor Huxley following Hume would
+have it--sound knowledge is restricted, outside the field of
+mathematics, to "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and
+existence." But although all premisses or data of inference come to us
+first through the gates of sense, there is much, beyond the limits
+within which sensible experience is confined, to a knowledge of which
+inference can lead us, and of which we become certain before experience
+can verify what we have thus learnt. Thus a chipped flint or a fragment
+of pottery is universally recognized as evidencing the work of man: a
+single page of Virgil would suffice--apart from all other
+information--to prove its author to have been both a poet and a scholar:
+the shipwrecked mariner cast on an unknown shore argued soundly from the
+sight of a gibbet that he had reached a civilized land ruled by law. But
+more than this, Science herself proceeds on this principle to the
+recognition not only of forces, the character of which is known by
+previous experience, but of others concerning which she knows nothing at
+all, except through the very effects from which she argues. Thus, as all
+bodies left free are found to draw towards one another in a certain
+mode, it is concluded with absolute confidence that there is a force
+making them do so, although this is in itself utterly imperceptible, and
+is known only by the way in which bodies behave under what must be its
+influence. Yet, who questions the existence of Gravitation? In like
+manner, the phenomena of light force us to admit the existence of the
+Ether, as the medium through which its waves are transmitted. Yet, we
+are compelled to attribute to this medium qualities apparently so
+incompatible that, as the late Lord Salisbury said, Ether remains, "a
+half discovered entity." But little as we can realize its nature, we
+have no doubt that such a medium exists.
+
+[7] "Value of the Natural History Sciences" (_Lay Sermons_), p. 75.
+
+[8] Italics his.
+
+[9] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, English translation,
+1903, Preface, p. vii.
+
+[10] _Riddle of the Universe_, Cheap English Edition, p. 2.
+
+[11] _ibid._, p. 85.
+
+[12] And also, it should be added, travelling bodily through space with
+a movement of "translation."
+
+[13] _Ibid._
+
+[14] _Ibid._, p. 2.
+
+[15] The 15th Chapter of Haeckel's _Natural History of Creation_ is
+devoted to this point.
+
+[16] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 32.
+
+[17] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 5.
+
+[18] _Ibid._, p. 78.
+
+[19] _Ibid._, p. 86.
+
+[20] _Ibid._, 134.
+
+[21] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 230.
+
+[22] _Presidential Address_, _Section D_, _Zoology_, Leeds, 1890.
+
+[23] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 2.
+
+[24] _Ibid._, p. 83.
+
+[25] "Pseudo-Scientific Realism," _Collected Essays_, i, 68, 74-78.
+
+[26] Newman, _Grammar of Assent_, p. 72. A "Law of Nature," as has
+already been said, is simply a statement of what _de facto_ has always
+been found to occur under certain conditions, and may consequently be
+expected again. It is obvious however that such expectation is
+implicitly based on the existence of some cause capable of ensuring the
+result.
+
+[27] "The Teaching of Natural Philosophy," _Contemporary Review_, Jan.,
+1878.
+
+[28] _Lay Sermons_, p. 83.
+
+[29] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[30] See Wasmann "Gedanken zur Entwicklungslehre," _Stimmen aus
+Maria-Laach_, vol. 63, p. 298.
+
+[31] _Contemporary Review_, ut sup., p. 301.
+
+[32] Professor Weldon, F.R.S., in the _Dictionary of National
+Biography_.
+
+[33] _Collected Essays_, v. 41.
+
+[34] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 75.
+
+[35] Professor Garnett in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. By "Force" is
+understood "any cause which tends to alter a body's natural state of
+rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line." Of the nature of such
+causes science professes to know very little, and as Clerk-Maxwell, who
+knew as much as most men, sang apropos of a lecture of Professor Tait's:
+
+    ... Tait writes in lucid symbols clear one small equation;
+    And Force becomes of Energy a mere space-variation.
+
+
+[36] Balfour Stewart, _Conservation of Energy_, Sec. 115; by Clerk-Maxwell,
+_apud_ Garnett, _ut sup._
+
+[37] Tyndall, _Fragments of Science_, 5th Edition, p. 23.
+
+[38] _Conservation of Energy_, Sec. 209.
+
+[39] Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin.
+
+[40] March 29, 1888.
+
+[41] So of another effort in the same direction Capt. Hutton tells us:
+"The last champion in the field is Professor A. W. Bickerton, who thinks
+he has found a way in which this dismal conclusion, as he considers it,
+may be averted. But he is not very sure about it, and has to assume:
+first, that space contains now and always will contain, a large quantity
+of cosmic dust scattered through it with some approach to uniformity;
+and secondly, that the Universe consists of an infinite number of what
+he calls 'cosmic systems,' travelling through space, constantly throwing
+off dust in all directions and occasionally colliding. As all this is
+pure assumption and highly improbable, I cannot think that Professor
+Bickerton has brought forward any serious objection to the theory of the
+dissipation of energy, and his hypothesis must be added to the list of
+failures." (_Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14, _n._)
+
+[42] _Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14.
+
+[43] _Darwin and after Darwin_, p. 17.
+
+[44] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[45] _Ueber die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben Weltraethsel_,
+Leipzic, 1882.
+
+[46] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Du Bois-Reymond does not say that they are soluble, but only that
+he cannot pronounce them "transcendental."
+
+[48] Samuel Laing, _Modern Science and Modern Thought_, Cheap Edition,
+p. 19.
+
+[49] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 86.
+
+[50] _Ibid._
+
+[51] P. 78.
+
+[52] P. 64.
+
+[53] _Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 23.
+
+[54] _Belfast Address_, 1874.
+
+[55] _Lay Sermons._ "On the Physical Basis of Life," p. 143.
+
+[56] Professor Tait, _Properties of Matter_, Sec. 108.
+
+[57] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 301.
+
+[58] _Story of Creation_, p. 11.
+
+[59] _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1903, p. 399.
+
+[60] Or "primal stuff." This looks remarkably like the old _Materia
+Prima_ of the Schoolmen translated into Greek.
+
+[61] _Ibid._ _The Revelations of Radium._
+
+[62] _Ibid._, p. 398.
+
+{_Note._--It is often assumed that the composite character of the
+atom--if fully established--must upset the Atomic Theory. This is not
+so; all that the new hypothesis does is to go further back in accounting
+for the Atomic Theory, and for all practical purposes things remain
+exactly as they were; except, indeed, that the dissolution of matter
+does away with what was held as one of the most assured conclusions of
+science.}
+
+[63] The Nebular Hypothesis itself is, of course, far from being an
+established certainty, and is not devoid of grave difficulties. Into
+these, however, it is not necessary now to enter.
+
+[64] _Apud_ Gaynor, _The New Materialism_, p. 83.
+
+[65] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[66] _Apud_ Gaynor, p. 84.
+
+[67] Professor Marsh.
+
+[68] Professor Dewar at Belfast, 1902.
+
+[69] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, 3rd Edition, p. 6.
+
+[70] Gaynor, p. 102.
+
+[71] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[72] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 305.
+
+[73] Being the year in which this passage was written.
+
+[74] Viz. that of the derivation of life from life alone, as opposed to
+_Abiogenesis_, or its production from lifeless matter.
+
+[75] See _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation," for a full
+account.
+
+[76] March 18, 1863. _Life and Letters_, i. 352.
+
+[77] April 30, 1870. _Ibid._ ii. 17.
+
+[78] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 238.
+
+[79] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.
+
+[80] _Evolution and the Origin of Life_, 1874, p. 23.
+
+[81] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[82] _Fragments of Science._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[83] _Ibid._ "Scientific use of the imagination."
+
+[84] _Fragments of Science_, "Spontaneous Generation."
+
+[85] _Ibid._ "Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address."
+
+[86] _Ibid._ "Vitality."
+
+[87] _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1886, p. 769.
+
+[88] Italics mine.
+
+[89] It has been established by Pasteur and others that the highest
+temperature at which organic life is possible is 45 deg. _Centigrade_ (113 deg.
+_Fahrenheit_). When the globe had cooled to this point from its
+primitive molten condition, the epoch of terrestrial life commenced.
+
+According to what is perhaps the latest theory, that of M. Quinton, the
+temperature immediately below this, 44 deg. _Centigrade_, remains always the
+best for living things, and those creatures are highest in the scale of
+life, and consequently the most developed, which have contrived means of
+keeping their internal heat at, or about, this level, despite the
+refrigeration of their surroundings. In their blood-heat M. Quinton
+therefore finds an absolute rule for fixing the relative rank of organic
+forms, and the date of their appearance; those whose blood is warmest
+being the most recently evolved. The results of this new system are
+sufficiently startling. Birds are to be classed as the highest and
+newest of all; while man, with the other _Primates_, has to take a much
+lower place, the ungulates, including the horse and donkey, and the
+carnivora, as dogs and cats, being his superiors. (_La Revue des Idees_,
+January 15, 1904, pp. 29 seq.)
+
+[90] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[91] To Sir J. D. Hooker, March 29, 1863.
+
+[92] To V. Carus, November 21, 1866.
+
+[93] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.
+
+[94] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.
+
+[95] _As regards Protoplasm_, p. 21.
+
+[96] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, "Biology."
+
+[97] Printed in _Lay Sermons_.
+
+[98] _Nature_, June 5, 1902, p. 121.
+
+[99] _Id. ibid._
+
+[100] _Op. cit._ p. 27.
+
+[101] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1887.
+
+[102] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 66.
+
+[103] _Op. cit._ ii. 63.
+
+[104] _Darwinism_, p. 474.
+
+[105] The other stages presenting similar difficulties are the 5th and
+6th of Du Bois-Reymond's Enigmas, viz. the introduction of sensation or
+consciousness (animal life), and of rational thought and speech.
+
+[106] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 298.
+
+[107] _Die sieben Weltraethsel_, D. 82.
+
+[108] Professor Huxley, it must be remarked, speaks of Homer as a "half
+savage Greek" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 12), and intimates a mild wonder that
+such a being could share our feelings in presence of nature to so large
+an extent as his poems testify. This is undoubtedly a fine example of
+the good conceit of ourselves which the pursuit of science is rather apt
+to produce.
+
+[109] _Darwinism_, p. 475.
+
+[110] _Descent of Man_, c. ii.
+
+[111] _Ibid._ 54.
+
+[112] In his paper read before the British Association at Oxford in
+1847.
+
+[113] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 89.
+
+[114] See Mivart, _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 166.
+
+[115] See Louis Arnould, _Une ame en prison_, and article "An imprisoned
+Soul," by the Ctesse. de Courson, _The Month_, January, 1902, p. 82.
+
+[116] _Descent of Man_, i. 57.
+
+[117] i.e. ape-like.
+
+[118] Quoted by Romanes, _Mental Evolution in Man_.
+
+[119] _Ibid._, p. 371.
+
+[120] _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 385.
+
+[121] _Op. cit._ p. 379.
+
+[122] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 46.
+
+[123] "Ontogeny" signifies the genesis of the individual, "Phylogeny"
+that of the race. Accordingly, when rendered into ordinary language,
+declarations such as these, unsupported as they are by any evidence, are
+found to mean that the development of the individual, tells us all about
+the development of the individual, and the development of the race all
+about that of the race. Is it really supposed, as it would seem to be,
+that such points are scientifically settled by translating terms into
+Greek?
+
+[124] _Lavengro_, passim.
+
+[125] _Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy_, p. 38.
+
+[126] _British Association Lecture_, 1873.
+
+[127] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 93.
+
+[128] _Origin of Species_ (5th Edition), p. 226.
+
+[129] Afterwards (April 17, 1863) Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker,
+"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
+Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by
+some wholly unknown process."
+
+[130] At a later period Mr. Darwin modified his views as to what he
+still termed "that wondrous organ the human eye," writing thus (_Descent
+of Man_, ii. 166): "We know what Helmholtz, the highest authority in
+Europe on the subject, has said about the human eye: that if an optician
+had sold him an instrument so carelessly made, he would have thought
+himself fully justified in returning it."
+
+It is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (_Vortraege und
+Reden_, i. 253, etc., English Edition, "_Popular Scientific Lectures_,"
+pp. 219, etc.), adding that "the eye has every possible defect that can
+be found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to
+itself." These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a
+good deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the
+first place, that in speaking as above he did so "from the narrow but
+legitimate point of view of an optician." Having then enumerated all the
+defects in question, he continues--"In an artificial camera, all these
+irregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not
+so, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of
+extreme difficulty to detect them." He adds that men in general not only
+are unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced
+to credit it. Also that they "almost always affect those portions of the
+field of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our
+attention." What is still more to the point, he observes, that the
+defects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is
+practical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical
+instrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that
+the eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or
+telescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they
+lack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes.
+"As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds
+Helmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very
+limitations set to its defects.... A man of any sense would not chop
+firewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the
+optical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to
+injury and slower in its development." Helmholtz therefore concludes
+that the eye is a product which "the wisest Wisdom may have
+pre-designed."
+
+It thus comes very much to Pope's solution:
+
+    Why has not man a microscopic eye?
+    For this plain reason: man is not a fly,--
+
+and in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about
+returning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap,
+unworthy of such a man.
+
+[131] _Life of C. Darwin_, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin,
+November 23, 1859.
+
+[132] _Animal Locomotion_ (International Scientific Series), p. 180.
+
+[133] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 69.
+
+[134] _Lectures on Evolution_ (Cheap Edition), p. 37.
+
+[135] _Philosophical Basis of Evolution_, passim.
+
+[136] By a _Final Cause_ is meant the predetermined result or end,
+towards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the
+ultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the
+_Final Cause_ of striking a match: while the striking of the match is
+the _Efficient Cause_ producing the light.
+
+[137] _Grammar of Assent_, p. 69.
+
+[138] _Familiar Lectures_, p. 458.
+
+[139] "On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':" _Life of C.
+Darwin_, ii. p. 187.
+
+[140] _Nineteenth Century_, No. 2. Reprinted in _Lectures and Essays_,
+p. 388 (2nd Edition).
+
+[141] _Studies in the Theory of Descent_, vol. ii. p. 710; _vid.
+Edinburgh Review_, October, 1902, _The Rise and Influence of Darwinism_.
+
+[142] _Ut sup._ p. 201.
+
+[143] _Sic._ The sense evidently requires either that the "not" should
+be deleted, or "prove" be substituted for "disprove" in the preceding
+line. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from which I
+quote, but likewise in the _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 307, where this
+passage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's _Natural
+History of Creation_, under the title of _The Genealogy of Animals_.
+
+[144] _Life and Letters_, ii. 195.
+
+[145] _Ibid._, p. 467.
+
+[146] _De Natura Deorum_, ii. 4.
+
+[147] _Principia, Schol. Gen._
+
+[148] _Unseen Universe_, p. 47.
+
+[149] _Burnett Lectures_, p. 327.
+
+[150] See report of his words emended by himself, _Nineteenth Century
+and After_, June, 1903.
+
+[151] Bradford, 1873.
+
+[152] Montreal, 1884.
+
+[153] _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 3rd Series, vol. v. p.
+138.
+
+[154] "Reception of 'Origin of Species,'" _ubi sup._ p. 199.
+
+[155] November 26, 1860.
+
+[156] May 22, 1860.
+
+[157] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[158] _The Scientific Basis of Morality_, by George Gore, LL.D., F.R.S.,
+p. 31.
+
+[159] May 22, 1860.
+
+[160] Bain, _De vi physica_, p. 76.
+
+[161] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 61.
+
+[162] Lord Grimthorpe, _op. cit._ 85.
+
+[163] Letter to the _Times_, June 2, 1903
+
+[164] The term _Monism_, invented by Wolf, originally bore a different
+meaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to signify
+equally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind, and the
+idealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor Haeckel, as
+will be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two names for one
+thing.
+
+[165] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_ (English translation),
+p. 60.
+
+[166] _Ibid._, p. 10.
+
+[167] _Ibid._, p. 3.
+
+[168] _Mind and Motion._
+
+[169] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of
+Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.
+
+[170] _Ibid._, p. 74.
+
+[171] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 51.
+
+[172] _Presidential Address_, _Section A_, _British Association_,
+Norwich, 1868.
+
+[173] "Mr. Darwin's Critics." (_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 283.)
+
+[174] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 19.
+
+[175] To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is illustrated
+by Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting _Bird Watching_, where he
+casually observes, as a matter of course, that the "life-part" of a
+tom-tit is as important in the sum of things as Napoleon's (p. 248), and
+declares elsewhere, more formally (p. 335)--"Surely, a beautiful
+butterfly, that, for all time, charms--and raises by charming--some
+number of those who see it, does more good on this earth than any single
+man or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no 'foot-prints on the sands of
+time.' Homer, for instance, has left his _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and
+these have been, and still are, mighty in their effects. But let them
+once perish, and Homer will be caught up and overtaken by almost any
+bird or butterfly--even a brown one."
+
+[176] _First Principles._
+
+[177] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.
+
+[178] As to the term "Chance" which he frequently used, Mr. Darwin wrote
+in one place (_Origin of Species_, Opening passage of c. v.): "I have
+hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and multiform
+with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with
+those in a state of nature--had been due to chance. This, of course, is
+a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
+ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." It is obvious,
+however, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we have
+heard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for it
+is absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of "Chance" quoted
+in the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind refuses to
+regard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know nothing, for
+that is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact, instinctively
+recognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if not due to
+purpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to the true and
+legitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed it.
+Occasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to
+defend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a
+factor.--_Vid. sup._, c. xii.
+
+[179] Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his system to
+_species_, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to the
+production of new _genera_, and even of divisions of the organic
+kingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus--apart from the most famous instance of
+all, treated by Darwin himself in his _Descent of Man_--it is now a
+cardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of
+life are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of
+development, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one
+identical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain
+that Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock,--and, still
+farther on, that at least all placental mammals--bats and whales,
+elephants and mice--trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.
+
+[180] _Origin of Species_, v.
+
+[181] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[182] _Ibid._, c. vi.
+
+[183] "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold
+all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now some
+small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel very
+uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I
+gaze at it, makes me sick." (_C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860._)
+
+[184] It will help to understand the nature of the task thus imposed
+upon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes on this
+subject (_Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 103):
+
+"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular
+shapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays
+of light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our
+eye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of
+proper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring
+all the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point
+without confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made
+machines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of
+them and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass
+melted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been
+built up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar
+and complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand,
+though we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they
+are persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again
+some of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of
+animals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a
+membrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of
+brush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of
+light; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be
+divided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be
+as long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish
+them; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a
+brush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of
+all these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in
+that organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living
+creatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet."
+
+[185] _Ibid._, c. vii.
+
+[186] Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin supposed the
+workmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact and accurate
+than usually is the case,--there remains quite enough of architectural
+merit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to increase the
+mystery that the insects should thus appear to strive towards an ideal,
+which they frequently fail to satisfy.
+
+[187] _Ranunculus ficaria._ It is remarkable that in the season of 1904
+this plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in which
+such fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.
+
+[188] _Origin of Species_, c. xiv.
+
+[189] _Descent of Man_, Part I, c. i.
+
+[190] _Biological Lectures and Addresses_, p. 202.
+
+[191] _Charles Darwin et ses precurseurs Francais_ (1870), p. 120.
+
+[192] _North British Review_, June, 1867. Professor Huxley likewise
+declared this criticism to be of "real and permanent value." (_Critiques
+and Addresses_, 252.)
+
+[193] _La vie des etres animes_, p. 102.
+
+[194] Presidential Address Geologists' Association (_Proceedings_, vol.
+v. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in _Contemporary Review_, February, 1877,
+under the title "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[195] See APPENDIX A. p. 280a.
+
+[196] _Variation in Animals and Plants_, p. 343. By H. M. Verney
+(International Scientific Series, 88).
+
+[197] J. W. Barclay, _New Theory of Organic Evolution_, p. 90.
+
+[198] Huxley, _Lectures and Essays_ (Popular Edition), pp. 28, seq.
+
+[199] Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely
+discarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The
+wing of _Hesperornis_, for example, is now declared to be an instance of
+_degeneration_ from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be
+considered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the
+descendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has
+yet been discovered. (See Pycraft's _Story of Bird Life_, p. 190.)
+
+[200] _Philosophical Transactions Royal Society_, 1863, p. 36.
+
+[201] This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, _Final Causes_, 2nd
+English Edition, p. 245.
+
+[202] _Descent of Man_, ii. 156.
+
+[203] _Tablet_, May 26, 1888, p. 837.
+
+[204] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 297.
+
+[205] _Descent of Man_, _i._ p. 57.
+
+[206] In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the suggestion is
+put in form of a question: "May not some unusually wise ape-like animal
+...?"
+
+[207] _Origin of Species_, c. vi.
+
+[208] _Ibid._, c. viii.
+
+[209] It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only be
+mentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have no
+descendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of
+the whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their
+existence.
+
+[210] _Descent of Man_ (1st Edition), ii. 385.
+
+[211] _Ibid._, i. 107.
+
+[212] _Ibid._, ii. 386.
+
+[213] _Charles Darwin et ses precurseurs Francais_, p. 151
+
+[214] _Ibid._, p. 167.
+
+[215] _La vie des etres animes_, p. 161.
+
+[216] Saint-Hilaire.
+
+[217] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. p. 82.
+
+[218] _North British Review_, July, 1867, p. 316.
+
+[219] P. 313.
+
+[220] November 5, 1903, _Journal of Botany_, January, 1904, p. 32.
+
+[221] Dr. Hudson, see _Nature_, February 20, 1890, p. 375.
+
+[222] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[223] _Op. cit._ p. 59.
+
+[224] _History of Creation_, English Edition, ii. 353.
+
+[225] _The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's "Natuerliche
+Schoepfungs-Geschichte."_ The _Academy_, 1869. Reprinted in _Critiques
+and Addresses_, and _Darwiniana_ (Collected Works).
+
+[226] The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is unknown,
+was supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found, however, that
+its removal entails _myxoedema_, a condition closely allied to
+cretinism.
+
+[227] "Geological Contemporaneity." (_Lay Sermons_, p. 206.)
+
+[228] Mr. Mivart, _Types of Animal Life_, p. 113.
+
+[229] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 13.
+
+[230] Mr. Mivart, _Tablet_, April 21, 1888.
+
+[231] The Mexican _Axolotl_, the _Triton Alpestris_, and probably
+others.
+
+[232] _Nature_, March 24, 1892.
+
+[233] i.e. the Science of Causes.
+
+[234] _Dictionnaire encyclopedique des sciences medicales._
+
+[235] Thus having described in detail a series of experiments as to the
+effects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larvae of various
+_hymenoptera_, M. Fabre writes:
+
+"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoques par
+Darwin." (_Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 330.)
+
+[236] _Journal of Linnean Society_, vol. xix.
+
+[237] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903, p. 218.
+
+[238] _Revue de Philosophie_, April 1, 1904.
+
+[239] _Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 317.
+
+[240] For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.
+
+[241] _Nature_, September 10, 1891.
+
+[242] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species._
+
+[243] _De opere sex dierum_, ii. 10, n. 12.
+
+[244] _Modern Idea of Evolution_, p. 97.
+
+[245] Darwin (_Origin of Species_, p. 274, 6th Edition) considers it
+"incredible" that the same identical species should originate twice even
+under the very same conditions. In the following passage, Haeckel
+affirms such unity of origin in respect of a most remarkable species of
+wide-reaching affinities.
+
+"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata,
+from the _Amphioxus_ upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia,
+reptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single
+vertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and
+highly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of
+processes or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a
+vertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the
+course of the earth's history." (Address to Munich meeting of German
+Association, vid. _Nature_, October 4, 1877.)
+
+[246] _Origin of Species_ (6th Edition), p. 265.
+
+[247] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii., 76.
+
+[248] _History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of Evolution_
+(1898).
+
+[249] Harebell.
+
+[250] According to the most recent system of classification, the
+Monopetalae, now re-christened _Sympetalae_, are ranked above the
+Polypetalae, the family of the _Compositae_ being highest of all.
+
+[251] _Proceedings_, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The substance of
+this address appeared as an article in the _Contemporary Review_,
+February, 1877, entitled, "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
+
+[252] See Appendix B. p. 284.
+
+[253] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_ (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.
+
+[254] These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are supposed by
+most naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear presently to
+have become extinct, no traces of them having been found in the chalk, a
+formation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor Marsh tells us
+on this subject (_Nature_, September 27, 1877, p. 471):
+
+"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence,
+either in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at
+essentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of
+Mammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens
+have been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and
+all are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in
+America, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at
+present only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the
+genus _Dromotherium_, supposed to be related to the insect-eating
+_Myrmecobius_, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe
+have yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet
+none of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of
+cretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world."
+
+[255] P. 118.
+
+[256] P. 105.
+
+[257] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. 34.
+
+[258] _Genesis of Species_, p. 129.
+
+[259] _Charles Darwin_, p. 185.
+
+[260] _Genesis of Species_, p. 130.
+
+[261] _Types of Animal Life_, 149.
+
+[262] _Genesis of Species_, p. 132.
+
+[263] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution" (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 251).
+
+[264] "Succession of Life on Earth." (_Half-hour Recreations_, 2nd
+Series, p. 329.)
+
+[265] _Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College, Manchester, p. 220, note.
+
+[266] See note, p. 238.
+
+[267] "Geological Contemporaneity," 1862. (_Lay Sermons_, p. 222.)
+
+[268] "Palaeontology and Evolution," 1876. (_Critiques and Addresses_, p.
+182.)
+
+[269] P. 187.
+
+[270] P. 192.
+
+[271] _Genealogy of Animals._
+
+[272] _Natural History of Creation._
+
+[273] _Le Transformisme_, pp. 337-340.
+
+[274] _Lectures on Evolution_, New York, 1876. Cheap Edition, p. 43.
+
+[275] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species_, etc.
+
+[276] _Essays on Controverted Questions_, p. 450.
+
+[277] "Utebatur autem equo insigni, pedibus prope humanis, et in modum
+digitorum ungulis fissis; quem natum apud se, cum haruspices imperium
+orbis terrae significare domino pronuntiassent, magna cura aluit."
+(Suetonius, _Julius_, 61.)
+
+[278] The _radius_ and _ulna_ are the two bones of the forearm above the
+wrist; the _tibia_ and _fibula_ the corresponding bones of the leg above
+the ankle. In the horse, the _ulna_ and _fibula_ are almost, but not
+quite, lost.
+
+[279] Animals and plants are placed in different _species_ when the
+differences between them are only _relative_; in different _genera_,
+when such differences are _absolute_. Thus, for example, the size of
+teeth is considered relative; the number of teeth absolute.
+
+[280] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 3rd Series, vol. 43
+(1892), p. 351.
+
+[281] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, p. 119.
+
+[282] _Types of Animal Life_, 205.
+
+[283] Nicholson and Lydekker's _Manual of Palaeontology_, ii. 1362.
+
+[284] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.
+
+[285] _Lydekker_, p. 1361.
+
+[286] _Evolution of the Horse_, 12.
+
+[287] "Succession of Life on Earth" (_Recreations in Popular Science_,
+2nd Series, p. 339).
+
+[288] British Museum (_Nat. Hist._) _Guide to fossil mammals and birds_,
+p. 38.
+
+[289] _American Journal of Science and Art_, 3rd Series, vol. 43 (1892),
+p. 351.
+
+[290] _The Evolution of the Horse_, p. 16.
+
+[291] _Lydekker_, _ut sup._ p. 1363.
+
+[292] Sir W. Flower, _The Horse_, p. 74.
+
+[293] "It is a consequence of the theory of Natural Selection that
+identity of structure involves community of descent; a given result can
+only be arrived at through a given sequence of events; the same
+morphological goal cannot be reached by two independent paths." Milnes
+Marshall, _Biological Lectures_, 247.
+
+[294] _Origin of Species_, c. xi. "Geological Succession of Organic
+Beings."
+
+[295] _Tablet_, April 21, 1888, p. 637.
+
+[296] _Catalogue of Mammals_, etc., _ut sup._ p. 38.
+
+[297] _Chain of Life_, p. 222.
+
+[298] _Les Enchainements du Monde Animal_ ... Mammiferes Tertiaires.
+
+[299] _Chain of Life_, 227.
+
+[300] It is the "fingers" of the bat's "hand" which support the wing
+membrane. Hence the scientific name _Cheiroptera_.
+
+[301] E.g. Dinotherium giganteum and Elephas meridionalis. (Vid. Gaudry,
+_op. cit._ 169.)
+
+[302] Lecture at Royal Institution, January 2, 1904.
+
+[303] A remarkable instance of the need of caution is furnished by the
+history of the Dinotherium itself. From the teeth, first found, Cuvier
+set down the animal as a monster Tapir. Then, a whole skull being
+discovered, Herr Kaup of Darmstadt, commenting upon the danger of such a
+proceeding, himself classed the beast among the Edentata (Sloths, etc.),
+and afterwards among the Hippopotami. Buckland and Strauss thought it
+must have been an aquatic creature; Blainville and Pictet labelled it a
+Manatee, or sea-cow. (Vid. Gaudry, _op. cit._ 187-9.)
+
+[304] _Op. cit._ p. 191.
+
+[305] Milnes Marshall, _Lectures on Darwinian Theory_, p. 66.
+
+[306] See Appendix C. p. 285.
+
+[307] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, c. iv.
+
+[308] "Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural
+Selection and Evolution." (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,
+Manchester, p. 200.)
+
+[309] _History of Creation_, ii. 92, English Edition.
+
+[310] _Ibid._, p. 295.
+
+[311] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 76.
+
+[312] As an instance M. de Quatrefages cites Haeckel's own words, from
+his _Anthropogenie_. "The Vertebrate Ancestor No. 15, akin to the
+Salamanders, must have been a species of Saurian (Lizard). There remains
+to us no fossil relic of this animal; in no respect did he resemble any
+form actually existing. Nevertheless, comparative anatomy and ontogeny
+authorize us in affirming that he once existed. We will call this animal
+_Protamnion_."
+
+[313] _Ibid._, p. 122.
+
+[314] _Revue Scientifique_ (1886), p. 486.
+
+[315] _Ibid._ (1877), I. 1101.
+
+[316] _Origin of Species_, c. x.
+
+[317] _Genesis of Species_, p. 134.
+
+[318] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. vi.
+
+[319] _Op. cit._, p. 288.
+
+[320] _Life of Darwin_, ii. 193.
+
+[321] _Epistle_ I--to Pope.
+
+[322] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903.
+
+[323] _Order of Nature_, p. 239.
+
+[324] _Thoughts on Religion_, p. 123.
+
+[325] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1871.
+
+[326] _Systeme Analytique des Connaissances positives de l'homme_
+(1830), pp. 8, 43.
+
+[327] _North American Slime Moulds_, Introduction, p. II.
+
+[328] Bloud's _Science et Religion_, No. 431, pp. 50, seq.
+
+[329] _Traite de Microbiologie_, I., p. 253. Also the Magazine
+_Broteria_ (Lisbon), Vol. vi., 1907, Botany, p. 23.
+
+[330] See _Nature_, June 4, 1903, p. 113, in notice of a paper on the
+subject by Professor F. W. Oliver and Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S.
+
+[331] _Linnean Society's Proceedings_, May 3, 1906.
+
+[332] See the _Congress Report_, vol. iv.
+
+[333] _Transactions American Philosophical Society_ (N.S.), 18, 1896,
+pp. 119, 120.
+
+[334] _The Origin and Influence of the Thorough-bred Horse._ Cambridge,
+1905.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, by
+John Gerard
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD RIDDLE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 33859.txt or 33859.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/8/5/33859/
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/33859.zip b/33859.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..06603ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/33859.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..035b1ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #33859 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33859)