1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
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>
|
