diff options
Diffstat (limited to '33859-h/33859-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 33859-h/33859-h.htm | 10026 |
1 files changed, 10026 insertions, 0 deletions
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—"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 OLD 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—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.</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> </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—What +was there before?—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—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—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.—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</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"—Alleged breaches—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—Also the Laws of +Motion—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—In its larger +sense, postulates spontaneous generation—which,<br /> +however, Science disallows—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—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</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—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,<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—It is the sole alternative to +Purpose or Design—Arguments against Purposive +Creation—The Existence of Pain—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—Its utter lack of a scientific +basis—Contradicted by the ideas of morality and +truth—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—Organic Evolution, or "Transformism,"<br /> +not identical with Darwinism—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—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</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>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</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—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</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—The recognition of a First Cause beyond the +Sensible Universe an intellectual necessity—Knowledge +of this cause attainable by reason—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—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"> </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,"—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—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.</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—"<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—of which the second obviously includes +the first,—"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 nebulæ.</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—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,—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.</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—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,—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—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—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.</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,—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:<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,—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.</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>à 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—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."</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,—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,—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,—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—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.</p> + +<p>But,—apart from this,—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,—Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may +be,—locomotive power,—eternity,—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;—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 +Aphrodité 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—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."</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—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,—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<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,—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—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—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,—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<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—Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael—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—sometimes even that it +can be—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 naïvely +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—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,<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—"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.—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.</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,—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,—that by no possibility can we ever understand how +consciousness could be evolved from matter—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—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.</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 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 <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:—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 Müller, +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,—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.<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 Æsop 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;—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 +æons 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>—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,—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:</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—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—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 +<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;—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<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_087" id="page_087">{87}</a></span> 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.</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,—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<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,)—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,—animals or<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_090" id="page_090">{90}</a></span> 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,<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—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—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—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.</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—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.</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—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.</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>à 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,—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,—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—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—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—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.</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,—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.</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—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 <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 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<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—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<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,—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,—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.</p> + +<p>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.</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—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<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;—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—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—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.</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—far from furnishing +an explanation of anything—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—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!"<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,—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 <i>Monism</i>,—from the +Greek <span title="Greek: Mónos">Μὁνος</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,—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 <i>are</i>,) 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 <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 +versâ</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—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 Cæsar, dead and turned to clay,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.—</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 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.</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,—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—"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,—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,—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,—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,—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;—"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.</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,—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,—"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.<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,—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 "<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,—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,—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.</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 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.</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>à 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,—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,—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.</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—"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,—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 +<i>Protozoa</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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 <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—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—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,—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—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.<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,—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.</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—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,<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—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—the splint-bones of the horse, +representing lost digits,—the rudimentary legs of some whales and +serpents,—the <i>mammae</i> and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the +vegetable kingdom,—the aborted pistil in male florets of some +<i>compositae</i>,—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,—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<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—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 <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—of +whatever kind it may be—which brought any of these into being, must +have <i>something</i>,—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.</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,—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<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—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.</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,—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,—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,—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—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,—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<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,—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>Archæopteryx</i>, most ancient of fowls, lower still, +in the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the +<i>Archæopteryx</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>Archæopteryx</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,—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."<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_173" id="page_173">{173}</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</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,—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 <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—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's Descent of Man. + +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."" 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,—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—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,—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—which he considers a most preposterous supposition,—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,—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 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."</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—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:—"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;—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>,—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 palæontologists +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—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 palæontologists, 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,—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,—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.—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 ætiology,<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 ætiological speculations with morphological generalizations +will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion."</p></div> + +<p>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<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,—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<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 précurseurs Français</i>, and <i>Les Emules +de Darwin</i>] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [<i>La +vie des êtres animés</i>], Wigand [<i>Der Darwinismus und die +Naturforschung</i>, etc.], Wolff [<i>Beiträge 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>], Kölliker [<i>Ueber die +darwin'sche Schöpfungstheorie</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.], +Nägeli [<i>Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre</i>], +Schaafhausen [<i>Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen</i>], Fechner [<i>Ideen zur +Schöpfungs-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,—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 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<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—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 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.</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 "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 <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 palæontology. 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>—"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>à priori</i> 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<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 palæontology 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;—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,—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.</p> + +<p>Therefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches +completeness, its testimony,—if it is<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_210" id="page_210">{210}</a></span> 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.</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,—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 palæontological 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,—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.</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>Palœozoic</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—the <i>algæ</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—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 <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 Palæozoic +times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy +this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.</p></div> + +<p>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 <i>Algæ</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 Palæozoic 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—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>Apetalæ</i>, <i>Monopetalæ</i>, +<i>Polypetalæ</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>Apetalæ</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>Apetalæ</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,—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,—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—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 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.</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—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 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.</p> + +<p>This wonderful Palæozoic 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—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 palæontologists. + +[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 palæontologists. + +[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>Algæ</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 +palæontological 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,—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.</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,—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—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!"</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—"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>lacunæ</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"—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—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.</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 palæontology<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—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 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.</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 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.</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 +palæontological 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 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,<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 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."</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,—"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 palæontological 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>,—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,—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 Cæsar'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—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:—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>,—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,—belonging to the genus <i>Equus</i>, perhaps +even to the species <i>caballus</i>,—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—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 +<i>Palæotherium</i>—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 <i>Palæotherium</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—(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> </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"> </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"> </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </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"> </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"> </td> +<td>Mesohippus </td> +<td class="bdlft"> Protohippus </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </td> +<td class="bdlft">Epihippus</td></tr> + +<tr><td>Orohippus </td> +<td class="bdlft"> {Mesohippus<br />(<i>2 species</i>) </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </td> +<td class="bdlft"> </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 EQUIDÆ." title="" /></a> +<span class="caption">DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIDÆ.</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—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 <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=""THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM. + +"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'S LECTURES ON EVOLUTION." title="" /></a> +<span class="caption">"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM. + +"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'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,—<i>Equus</i> from <i>Eohippus</i>, +<i>Hyracotherium</i>, <i>Phenacodus</i>, or <i>Hippops</i>,—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<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_256" id="page_256">{256}</a></span> 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 <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,—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 <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,—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:<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—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"—"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>Equidæ</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 palæontology 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,—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.</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,—- 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 palæontological evidence. This +wonderful genealogy stands thus:</p> + +<p>1. <i>Monera.</i> 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval +animals. 4. Ciliated planulæ (<i>Planæada</i>). 5. Primeval Intestinal +animals (<i>Gastræada</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>Prosimiæ</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 palæontological 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 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.</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,—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—which we will not +question—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 Palæontology, 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,"—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.</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>—"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,—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.</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,—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.</p> + +<p>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.<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,—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;—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,—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.</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—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<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,—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<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;—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,"—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,—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 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."</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—"une +élasticité functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier à des +conditions variées d'existence sans changer d'être." (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'espèce ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilité est un +caractère comme un autre, bien que plus<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_281" id="page_281">{281}</a></span> 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."</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—</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 religiöse 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. 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.</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—the 'bathmic +force' of Cope—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 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."</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 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."</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>Ætiology</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>Archæopteryx</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.—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.—on the nature of the First Cause, <a href="#page_276">276</a><br /> + +Bastian, Dr. H. C.—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.,—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.—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,—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,—on animal sounds and language, <a href="#page_074">74</a><br /> + +Butler, Bishop,—on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, <a href="#page_100">100</a><br /> +<br /> + +Carruthers, Mr. W.—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.—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—on the evidence for a Deity, <a href="#page_103">103</a><br /> + +Clerk-Maxwell, Prof.—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.—on design in Nature, <a href="#page_101">101</a><br /> + +Clodd, Mr. E.—on atoms, <a href="#page_041">41</a><br /> + +Comte, Auguste—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.—on force and its determination, 9<a href="#page_004">4-96</a><br /> + +Crookes, Sir W.—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.—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.—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>Equidæ</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 palæontological 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—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,—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>Equidæ</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.—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.—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.—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.—on force, 23<span class="pagenumber"><a name="page_292" id="page_292">{292}</a></span><br /> + +Gaudry, M.—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—on "iron law," <a href="#page_014">14</a><br /> + +Gore, Dr. G.—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)—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.—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>Apetalæ</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.—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.—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.—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.—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—on human speech, <a href="#page_076">76</a><br /> + +Hutton, F. W.—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.—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 ætiology, <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 palæontological 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.—on free-will, <a href="#page_084">84</a><br /> + +Julius Cæsar, his polydactyle charger, <a href="#page_241">241</a><br /> +<br /> + +Kant—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),—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.—on matter and motion, <a href="#page_035">35</a><br /> + +Lamarck—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—on evolution of <i>Proboscideae</i>, <a href="#page_259">259</a><br /> + +Laws of Nature—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.—on Laws of Nature, <a href="#page_086">86</a><br /> + +Liddon, Canon—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.—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.—on pedigree of the Horse, <a href="#page_248">248</a><br /> + +Lyell, Sir C.—on the need of creation, <a href="#page_269">269</a><br /> +<br /> + +Mallock, Mr. W.—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.—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—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 Müller, Prof.—on language, <a href="#page_073">73</a>, <a href="#page_075">75</a><br /> + +Mendeléeff'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.—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—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—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—and Darwinism, <a href="#page_186">186</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not evidenced by palæontology, <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.—on the <i>Archæopteryx</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 /> + +Palæontology—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—his "watch argument" disproved by machine-made watches, <a href="#page_118">118</a><br /> + +Pasteur, M.—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.—on the evidence for Evolution, <a href="#page_237">237</a><br /> + +Pettigrew, Mr.—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—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.—new doctrine of life development, <a href="#page_057">57</a> n.<br /> +<br /> + +<i>Rana opisthodon</i>—embryology, <a href="#page_195">195</a><br /> + +Rayleigh, Lord—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—on God and the world, <a href="#page_279">279</a><br /> + +Robin, M. Ch.—on Darwinism, <a href="#page_198">198</a><br /> + +Romanes, Prof.—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.—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—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—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.—exemplifies Monistic doctrines, <a href="#page_139">139</a> n.<br /> + +Sensation and consciousness,—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—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.—on materialism, <a href="#page_078">78</a><br /> + +Stewart, Prof. Balfour—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—on self-evidence of theism, <a href="#page_104">104</a>, <a href="#page_273">273</a><br /> + +Stirling, Mr.—on protoplasm, <a href="#page_059">59</a>, <a href="#page_061">61</a><br /> + +Stokes, Sir G. G.—on evidence for design, <a href="#page_104">104</a><br /> + +Suarez—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.—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—<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.—on protoplasm, <a href="#page_060">60-62</a><br /> + +<i>Thyroid</i> gland—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.—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.—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.—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—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.—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.—on our intellectual need for causality, <a href="#page_101">101</a><br /> + +Weldon, Prof.—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.—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.—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>equidæ</i>, <a href="#page_251">251</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on lack of palæontological 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.—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> </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, & 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 Père 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:—</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>—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.</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, +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. <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 à 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."—<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>—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.</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>—<i>Biographical and Historical.</i> 1. A Jesuit Reformer and +Poet—2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)—3. Savonarola—4. +M. Emery—5. The Great Schism. <i>General.</i>—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.<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 Abbé 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 Abbé 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 FRANÇAIS? OU LE FRANÇAIS ENSEIGNÉ D'APRÈS LA MÉTHODE +DIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustré 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> DOBRÉE. 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 +GENEVIÈVE 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 Pré 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>—<i>Essays.</i> 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). <i>Lectures.</i> 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.<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>—The Turks in their Relation to Europe—- Marcus Tullius +Cicero—Apollonius of Tyana—Primitive Christianity.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Vol. II.</span>—The Church of the Fathers—St. Chrysostom—Theodoret—Mission +of St. Benedict—Benedictine Schools.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Vol. III.</span>—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.</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. 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.</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—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.</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>Über die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben +Welträthsel</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>—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.}</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 Idées</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 Welträthsel</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 âme 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>Vorträge 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—"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,—</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)—"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 +<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—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—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.—<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—apart from the most famous instance of +all, treated by Darwin himself in his <i>Descent of Man</i>—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.</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,—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 précurseurs Français</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 êtres animés</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 précurseurs Français</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 êtres animés</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 +"Natürliche Schöpfungs-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 encyclopédique des sciences médicales.</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 larvæ of +various <i>hymenoptera</i>, M. Fabre writes: +</p><p> +"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqués 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 Monopetalæ, now re-christened <i>Sympetalae</i>, are ranked above the +Polypetalæ, 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> "Palæontology 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 Palæontology</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> ... Mammifères +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—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>Système 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>Traité 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> |