{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33859/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33859","id":"gutenberg_33859","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33859","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Evolution","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Chuck Greif, Peter Vachuska and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER\n\n     The Lord St. Alban would say to some philosophers--\"Gentlemen,\n     nature is a labyrinth, in which the very haste you move with, will\n     make you lose your way.\"\n                                     BACON, _Apophthegms_.\n\n\n\n\nTHE OLD RIDDLE\nAND THE NEWEST\nANSWER\n\nBY\nJOHN GERARD, S.J., F.L.S.\n\n_FOURTH EDITION_\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\n39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON,\nNEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA\n\n1907\n\n\n\n\nROEHAMPTON:\n\nPRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe enemies of Science are not the philistines alone--if any still\nremain--who would muzzle or stifle her. More numerous and dangerous are\nthose--professedly of her own household--who ascribe to her pretensions\nof which she herself knows nothing, and strive to make her responsible\nfor a philosophy entirely beyond her scope. With this object efforts are\nassiduously made to popularize the idea that nothing in heaven or earth\nis beyond her ken, and that she has rendered all such beliefs impossible\nas alone can satisfy the deeper cravings of humanity. At the same time\nthe very brilliance of her achievements is apt to dazzle our eyes,\nblinding them to the extremely narrow limits of the field in which she\ncan operate, and making us rush to the conclusion that she has solved\nthe riddle which from the beginning of time Nature has offered to every\nthinking mind,--or at least that what her search-light cannot illumine\nmust for ever remain unknowable.\n\nHow far such assumptions are rational, it is the object of the present\nenquiry to examine by means of the evidence furnished by Science herself\nin her own regard.\n\nI have to thank Mr. W. E. Darwin for permission to use the illustration\nof feathers of the Argus Pheasant from his illustrious father's _Descent\nof Man_, and for the loan of blocks for the purpose. Through the\ncourtesy of Messrs. Macmillan I am allowed to copy a portion of the\nplate in the late Professor Huxley's _Lectures on Evolution_,\nillustrating his pedigree of the Horse. If I forbear to mention others\nwho have kindly supplied me with information, it is only lest it might\nbe supposed that they are anywise responsible for the use I have made of\nit. The design on the cover of the present volume I owe to my friend Mr.\nPaul Woodroffe.\n\nJ. G.\n\n_March_ 10, 1904.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n\n\nIn this edition, which has been thoroughly revised throughout, a few\ncorrections have had to be made, especially in the Index, and in one or\ntwo instances alterations or additions have appeared advisable for the\nsake of clearness or accuracy of expression. Nothing has, however, as\nyet been brought to the author's notice which affects any substantial\npoint in what he has written.\n\n_July_ 28, 1904.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION\n\n\nThis edition has again been thoroughly revised, and some new matter\nappended which bears on various points raised in the original volume,\nespecially the establishment of the important group of the\n_Cycado-filices_, as affecting the succession of plant life on the\nearth, and recent evidence concerning the pedigree of the horse.\n\n_December_ 21, 1906.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n                                                                PAGES\n\nTO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING\n\nCertainty that there was a Beginning of the World--What\nwas there before?--The Great Problem, to be\nanswered by Reason and Science                                    1-3\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nREASON AND SCIENCE\n\nPrinciples of Reasoning--Scope and method of Science              4-7\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nEVOLUTION\n\nTerm variously used for a Process and a Principle. We\ncommence with the latter                                          8-9\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n\"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION\"\n\nEvolution as a Philosophy--Main features of the\nsystem                                                          10-14\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nWHAT IS A \"LAW OF NATURE\"?\n\nErroneous use of the term frequent: its scientific use          15-19\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n\"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE\"\n\nA combination of two other \"Laws,\" viz.--The indestructibility\nof Matter, and the Conservation of\nEnergy--But there is also Dissipation of Energy--Consequences\ninferred from this as to the Duration\nof the Universe                                                 20-28\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n\"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS\"\n\nThe \"Law of Continuity\"--Alleged breaches--Seven\nevolutionary stages deduced to be scientifically\nunexplained, or even inexplicable                               29-34\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nMATTER AND MOTION\n\nConstitution and Properties of Matter inconsistent with\nHaeckel's evolutionary system--Also the Laws of\nMotion--Radium and its revelations                              35-44\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE PROBLEM OF LIFE\n\nEvolution here considered as a process--In its larger\nsense, postulates spontaneous generation--which,\nhowever, Science disallows--Protoplasm and Crystallization      45-66\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nANIMAL AND MAN\n\nOrigin of simple sensation and consciousness even less\nexplicable than that of life--Gulf between man\nand the lower animals--Language exclusively\nhuman--The significance of Free-will can be impugned\nonly by the absurdity of denying its existence                  67-85\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE ORDER OF NATURE\n\nThe order of the _Cosmos_ requires a Cause--No cause\nknown to us can produce such a result except Intelligence--Hence\nwe infer Purpose or Design and\nare led to Theism--Scientific evidence as to this,\n\"the Grand Question\"                                           86-109\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nPURPOSE AND CHANCE\n\nWhat \"Chance\" means--It is the sole alternative to\nPurpose or Design--Arguments against Purposive\nCreation--The Existence of Pain--The Mysteries\nof Generation                                                 110-125\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nMONISM\n\nThe Monistic Philosophy--Its utter lack of a scientific\nbasis--Contradicted by the ideas of morality and\ntruth--Not really adopted by Monists themselves               126-139\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nORGANIC EVOLUTION\n\n\"Evolution\" now to be considered in its most restricted\nsignification--Organic Evolution, or \"Transformism,\"\nnot identical with Darwinism--The\nnature of the questions before us                             140-148\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nDARWINISM\n\nThough no essential part of our enquiry, Darwinism\nmust be studied on account of importance ascribed\nto it--Baseless claims on its behalf--True character\nof the system--Natural Selection and its mode of\naction--Phenomena which seem to favour Darwinism--Difficulties\non the other side--Limits of\nVariation--Specific stability--Adverse probabilities--Natural\nselection can produce nothing--Transitional\ndevelopments useless or harmful--Artistic\nornaments unexplained--Flaws in argument--Organic\nprogress--Rudimentary Organs--Embryology--Scientific\nopinion as to Darwinism                                       149-203\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nTHE FACTS OF EVOLUTION\n\nPal\u00e6ontology furnishes the only sound basis for argument--The\nnature of the evidence required--The\nhistory of Life as known to us is inconsistent\nwith evolutionary theories--Haeckel's \"ante-periods\"--Conclusion\nto which facts point                                          204-238\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\n\"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM\"\n\nArguments on behalf of Evolution--The genealogy of\nthe Horse--Haeckel's Pedigree of Man--Darwin's\nplea of imperfection of the geological record--No\nevolutionary process is yet demonstrated; Still less\nhas anything been done to establish Evolution as a\ncreative force                                                239-269\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTO SUM UP\n\nReason leads to conclusions which physical science cannot\nreach--The recognition of a First Cause beyond the\nSensible Universe an intellectual necessity--Knowledge\nof this cause attainable by reason--Conclusion                270-280\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nA. Recent Scientific Verdicts concerning Darwinism and\nTransformism                                                      281\n\nB. Development of Plant life--the _Cycadofilices_                 284\n\nC. The Course of Evolution                                        285\n\nD. The pedigree of the Horse: further evidence                    286\n\nINDEX                                                             289\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING\n\n\nThat the world as we know it had a beginning is a truth which there is\nno denying. Not only have philosophers always argued that it must be so:\nthe researches of physical science assure us that it has been so in\nfact. Astronomy, says Professor Huxley,[1] \"leads us to contemplate\nphenomena the very nature of which demonstrates that they must have had\na beginning.\" The hypothesis that phenomena of Nature similar to those\nexhibited by the present world have always existed, the same authority\nassures us,[2] \"is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as we\nhave, which is of so plain and so simple a character that it is\nimpossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it forces\nupon us.\" This conclusion, physicists tell us, is inevitable when we\nstudy the laws by which the operations of Nature are governed, and as\nProfessor Balfour Stewart writes,[3] we thus become \"absolutely certain\"\nthat these operations cannot have existed for ever, and that a time\nwill come when they must cease. In like manner, a recent and competent\nwitness to the conclusions of contemporary Science, lays down,[4] as one\nof the truths which her latest discoveries compel us to accept, that the\nworld is not eternal, that the earth is cooling from a state of heat\nrendering life impossible, to one of physical exhaustion equally fatal\nto it. Accordingly \"Life must have had a beginning and must come to an\nend,\"--and our whole Solar System (he adds) must similarly have had a\ncommencement, at a period not infinitely remote.\n\nBut, if the world had a beginning, what was there before it began?\nSomething there must have been, and something which had the power of\nproducing it. Had there ever been nothing, there could never have been\nanything, for, _Ex nihilo nihil fit_. That nothing should turn into\nsomething is an idea which the mind refuses to entertain. Nor is the\ncase any better even if we suppose that matter had no beginning, that it\nhas existed for ever as we know it now, and that at first there was\nnothing else. For if so, whence have all these things arisen which,\naccording to all observation and experiment, matter cannot produce, as,\norganic life, sensitive life, consciousness, reason, moral goodness? Had\nmatter been always what it now is, and had there been no source beyond\nmatter whence the power of producing all these things could be derived,\nthey could never have been produced at all, or else they would have\ncome into being without a cause. It would be like a milestone growing\ninto an apple-tree, or a mountain spontaneously giving birth to a mouse.\n\nWe are therefore compelled by common-sense to ask when we consider\nNature, What is the force or power at the back of her, which first set\nher going, and whence she draws the capability of performing the\noperations which we find her performing every day; that force or power\nwhich must be the ultimate origin of everything that is in the world?\nThis is the great fundamental problem which the student of Nature has to\nface, and beside it all others fade into insignificance. It is with this\nthat we are now engaged. We have to ask how our reason bids us answer\nit, and the first question which arises naturally is, What light is\nthrown on the subject by modern Science, of whose achievements we are\nall so justly proud?\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nREASON AND SCIENCE\n\n\nIn studying a question such as this, we must commence by being\ndetermined, on the one hand to accept nothing as true but what our\nreason warrants us in believing, and on the other hand to follow the\nguidance of reason as far as, rightly used, it will lead us. The\nprinciple formulated[5] by Professor Huxley, as the foundation-stone of\nwhat he termed \"Agnosticism,\" is that which must needs be adopted, and\nas a matter of fact has ever been adopted, by rational men.\n\n     Positively--in matters of the intellect follow your reason as far\n     as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And\n     negatively--in matters of the intellect do not pretend that\n     conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.\n\nBut to justify the confidence which we thus repose in it we must\nobviously be careful to use our reason aright, and not to attribute to\nit any conclusions which it does not really sanction. It is this right\nuse of reason that is specially claimed for modern \"Science,\"[6] which,\nas we are again assured by Professor Huxley, is only another name for\nsound reasoning--\"_Science_,\" he declares,[7] \"_is, I believe, nothing\nbut trained and organized common-sense_.[8] ... The man of science, in\nfact, simply uses with scrupulous exactness, the methods which we all,\nhabitually and at every moment, use carelessly.\"\n\nThere can be no sort of question that so long as men of science really\nact thus, and confine themselves to the treatment of matters in regard\nof which they can claim special knowledge, common sense bids us listen\nto them with respect, and even with submission. But the same common\nsense requires that we should satisfy ourselves that they truly deserve\nthe character assigned them, and pretend to no knowledge on the score of\nScience but what their scientific methods are competent to acquire. When\nthey step beyond this their own proper domain, whatever weight may be\ngiven to their opinions upon other grounds, they cease to speak in the\nname of Science.\n\nWhat then, we must ask, is the province of Science, and what are her\nmethods?\n\n\"Science,\" always understanding by the term physical or experimental\nScience, deals with the universe so far as it is known to us through our\nsenses. The universe known thus we call \"Nature,\" and the whole stock in\ntrade of Science is the examination and verification of natural\nphenomena, with such inferences therefrom as ascertained facts\nlegitimately suggest. From careful and trustworthy observation she can\nlearn what are called the \"Laws of Nature,\" that is to say the manner in\nwhich the various elements and forces of the universe are found\nconstantly to act, in given circumstances; she can, to some extent,\ndiscover the chain of causes and effects, or more properly of\nconditions and consequences, through which natural operations are\ncarried on. She can even construct hypotheses as to what she cannot\ndirectly observe, namely, the nature of substances and forces; and such\nhypotheses are justified in proportion as they are found to tally with\nfacts. If constantly thus justified, they are styled theories, and come\nto be practically assumed as established truths. But it must ever be\nremembered that Science can take no step in advance which is not based\non fact, and that when facts are not forthcoming for its support an\nhypothesis or a theory has no scientific value.\n\nBearing this in mind, we will proceed to enquire what Science has to\ntell us regarding the origin of the world, and the manner in which it\nhas come to be what it is.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\"EVOLUTION\"\n\n\nWe are constantly assured that Science compels us to believe in\n\"Evolution,\" and that in this doctrine is to be found the explanation of\nthe universe whereof we are in quest. We must however in the first place\nmake sure that we understand what \"Evolution\" means, and if we look into\nthe question, it speedily appears that the term is very differently\nunderstood by those who use it.\n\nSome who style themselves \"Evolutionists\" mean only that, as a matter of\nestablished fact, the organic world, the world of life, whether animal\nor vegetable, has been brought to its present condition by _genetic_\ndevelopment of one species from another, in the natural course of\ndescent and through the operation of natural laws; and that as we see\nplants and animals of the same kind propagated one from another at the\npresent day, so in the course of long ages the lower and simpler forms\nof life have given birth to the higher and more complex.\n\nOthers again do not limit this process to organic creatures, and believe\nthat from first to last, the whole world, inorganic and organic alike,\nhas resulted from the action of forces such as those with which Science\ndeals; and that life has thus arisen in purely natural course out of\nnon-living matter, the universe in its original condition having been\nconstituted as a vast machine which was bound to produce all that has\nsince arisen.\n\nIn either of the above senses--of which the second obviously includes\nthe first,--\"Evolution\" is understood as no more than a _process_ which\nis said to have occurred. But there is a more extreme school which takes\n\"Evolution\" for much more, namely for a power, principle, or \"law,\"\nwhich both governs and accounts for everything, and requires no further\ncause beyond itself.\n\nIf this paramount \"Law of Evolution\" can be established, there is\nclearly an end of our enquiry, for here is the ultimate explanation of\neverything which we are seeking. But what has Science to say concerning\nit?\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\"THE LAW OF EVOLUTION\"\n\n\nThat there is a self-existing and self-sufficing \"Law of Evolution\" to\nwhich everything in the world must be ascribed, is the doctrine of those\nEvolutionists who are most active in propagating their creed and who\nmost loudly proclaim that it alone is scientific. The great leader and\nprophet of this school, Professor Ernst Haeckel, assures us[9] that he\ngives expression,\n\n     to that rational view of the world which is being forced upon us\n     with such logical rigour by the modern advancements in our\n     knowledge of nature as a unity, a view in reality held by almost\n     all unprejudiced and thinking men of science, although but few have\n     the courage (or the need) to declare it openly.\n\nThe plain and rational conclusion thus exhibited is, he tells us,[10]\nthe special glory of modern research.\n\n     It is true [he writes] that there were philosophers who spoke of\n     the evolution of things a thousand years ago; but the recognition\n     that such a law dominates the entire universe, and that the world\n     is nothing else than an eternal \"evolution of substance,\" is a\n     fruit of the nineteenth century.\n\nSo far as concerns the world which we actually inhabit, its first\nbeginning, we must, he tells us, suppose[11] to have been a vast nebula\nof infinitely attenuated and light material, rotating upon its own\naxis.[12]\n\n     Given this first beginning of the cosmogonic movement, it is easy,\n     on mathematical principles, to deduce and mathematically establish\n     the further phenomena of the foundation of the cosmic bodies, the\n     separation of the planets, and so forth.\n\nNor are we to suppose that the beginning of this particular process was\nin any true sense a beginning at all. Evolutionary philosophy such as\nProfessor Haeckel's, necessarily teaches that beginnings and endings\nsucceed one another everlastingly, one world-system arising phoenix-like\nfrom the ashes of another.\n\n     The nebular hypothesis above described has recently [we are\n     told][13] been strongly confirmed and enlarged by the theory that\n     this cosmogonic process did not simply take place once, but is\n     periodically repeated. While new cosmic bodies arise and develop,\n     out of rotating masses of nebula in some parts of the universe, in\n     other parts old, extinct, frigid suns come into collision, and are\n     once more reduced by the heat generated to the condition of nebul\u00e6.\n\nIt appears, in fact, to be assumed that this cyclic process has been\nactually demonstrated, for we are told[14] that astronomy reveals, in\nthe endless depths of space, \"Millions of circling spheres, larger than\nour earth, and, like it, in an eternal rhythm of life and death.\"\n\nMoreover, \"life\" is here to be understood literally, for it is a\ncardinal article of such evolutionary belief that equally with the\nfoundation of cosmic bodies and the separation of planets, the\nproduction of organic life, of plants and animals, has been wrought by\nforces which the material universe contains within itself,[15] and\naccordingly,[16]\n\n     We now definitely know that the organic world on our earth has been\n     continuously developed \"in accordance with eternal iron laws.\" ...\n     An unbroken series of natural events, following an orderly course\n     of evolution according to fixed laws, now leads the reflecting\n     human spirit through long aeons from a primeval chaos to the\n     present order of the cosmos.\n\nFinally, at the back of all these processes, we are to recognize the one\nultimate reality, the universe itself, which originates and undergoes\nall these evolutions. In its regard Professor Haeckel tells us[17] that,\n\n     The universe, or cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. Its\n     substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy) fills\n     infinite space and is in eternal motion. This motion runs on\n     through infinite time as an unbroken development, with a periodic\n     change from life to death, from evolution to devolution....\n\nAnd again:[18]\n\n     The two fundamental forms of substances, ponderable matter and\n     ether, are not dead and moved only by extrinsic force, but they are\n     endowed also with sensation and will (though naturally of the\n     lowest grade); they experience an inclination for condensation, a\n     dislike of strain; they strive after the one and struggle against\n     the other.\n\nMoreover,\n\n     Movement[19] is as innate and original a property of substances as\n     is sensation.\n\nSuch is the raw material whose metamorphoses produce, or rather\nconstitute, all possible worlds, while paramount over every thing\ndominates the \"Law of Substance,\" under which title Professor Haeckel\nunites the scientific principles of the indestructibility of matter,\nand the conservation of energy. Thus is the conclusion reached,[20]\n\n     Towering above all the achievements and discoveries of the century\n     we have the great comprehensive \"law of substance,\" the fundamental\n     law of the constancy of matter and force. The fact that substance\n     is everywhere subject to eternal movement and transformation gives\n     it the character also of the universal law of evolution. As this\n     supreme law has been firmly established and all others are\n     subordinate to it, we arrive at a conviction of the universal unity\n     of nature and the eternal validity of its laws.\n\nAccordingly we are to conclude with Goethe that all proceeds by iron law\nto the fulfilling of inevitable destiny; or as an ardent disciple\nproclaims, who undertakes to expound the new creed to the people,[21]\n\n     We rest in sure and certain hope that no force and no combination\n     of forces can stop the process of Evolution, which from a speck of\n     jelly has developed such living forms as Charles Darwin and Herbert\n     Spencer, and which has produced the beauty of the earth and the\n     heavens from formless ether.\n\nThis outline of the Evolutionary system in its widest and fullest sense\nwill enable us to judge upon what grounds it can claim the sanction of\nScience. Various points here present themselves for consideration, which\ndemand separate treatment.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nWHAT IS A \"LAW OF NATURE\"?\n\n\nAs we have seen, the doctrine of Evolution is presented by its advocates\nas being based upon the existence of a \"Law of Evolution,\" or \"Law of\nSubstance,\" which both brings about evolutionary processes, and\ncertifies us of their occurrence, so that we may appeal to it as an\nauthority for our belief in the facts of evolution themselves. Thus as\nProfessor Milnes Marshall told the British Association,[22]\n\n     The doctrine of descent, or of evolution, teaches us that as\n     individual animals arise, not spontaneously, but by direct descent\n     from pre-existing animals, so also is it with species, with\n     families, and with larger groups of animals, and so also has it\n     been for all time.\n\nIt is not said, be it observed, that the establishment of such facts\nteaches us the doctrine of evolution, but that the doctrine assures us\nof the facts; and the utterances constantly met with, of which the above\nis a fair sample, have no signification if they do not mean this. In\nthe same way Professor Haeckel declares[23] that his fundamental cosmic\nlaw \"establishes\" the eternal persistence of matter and force, and their\nunvarying constancy throughout the entire universe, becoming thus \"the\npole-star that guides our Philosophy through the mighty labyrinth to a\nsolution of the world problem,\" and the key to this supreme problem, he\nfurther tells us,[24] is found in one magic word--Evolution.\n\nIt would certainly appear from all this, that by \"Evolution\" we are to\nunderstand some sort of entity at the back of the world, with power at\nits disposal capable of effecting all its operations,--something in fact\nremarkably like the First Cause of which we are in search,--and that by\nits \"Laws\" are signified some definite forces, the practical action of\nwhich has been ascertained by us, so that we can foretell the course of\nevents under them, as we can that of the planets or the tides under the\ninfluence of gravitation.\n\nBut is it scientific, or even intelligible, to use words thus, and to\nassign any such significance to such terms as \"Law of Evolution,\" \"Law\nof Substance,\" or any other \"Law of Nature\"? We are repeatedly warned to\nthe contrary by so high an authority as Professor Huxley. Once, for\ninstance, he discovered in a sermon of Canon Liddon's this \"fallacious\nemployment of the name of a scientific conception,\" for which it was\nhowever added, the preacher \"could find only too many scientific\nprecedents.\"[25] This fallacious use of terms, which nowise differs from\nthat under consideration, Professor Huxley thus denounces:\n\n     It is the use of the word \"law\" as if it denoted a thing--as if a\n     \"law of nature,\" as science understands it, were a being endowed\n     with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by\n     that law are brought about.... All I wish to remark is that such a\n     conception of the nature of \"laws\" has nothing to do with modern\n     science.... A law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the\n     product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come\n     under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind\n     than colour has. The law of gravitation is a statement of the\n     manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to\n     move, do, in fact, move towards one another.... The tenacity of the\n     wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of\n     being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which\n     we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our\n     anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting\n     psychological fact: and would be unintelligible if the tendency of\n     the human mind towards realism were less strong.\n\nA law, accordingly, \"is not a cause but a fact,\"[26] and we must learn\nlaws from facts, not facts from laws. It is indeed evident on a\nmoment's thought, that to speak of the Law of Evolution as causing\nthings to be evolved, is like saying that the law of growth makes things\ngrow. Till we know what happens, there is nothing of which Science can\ntake account.\n\n     True scientific teaching, I cannot too often repeat [says Professor\n     Tait][27] requires that the facts, and their _necessary_\n     consequences alone, should be stated, as simply as possible.\n\nIn like manner Professor Huxley,[28] undertaking to vindicate full\nscientific value for his own favourite Biology, does so by pointing out\nthat biological methods are similar to those of every other branch of\nScience, since they begin with the observation of facts, and from this\nproceed to various applications of the knowledge so acquired. And\nProfessor Haeckel himself tells us regarding his own mode of\nprocedure:[29]\n\n     The means and methods we have chosen for attaining the solution of\n     the great enigma do not differ, on the whole, from those of all\n     purely scientific investigation: firstly, experience; secondly,\n     inference.\n\nTherefore, although the phrases we have already heard from him, are\nfound when scrutinized to be only phrases, which explain nothing, it\nmay be supposed that he elsewhere produces such proofs of his doctrine\nas will place it on a scientific basis. For these we will now seek.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\"THE LAW OF SUBSTANCE\"\n\n\nWe have just been told by Professor Haeckel, that the means and methods\nwhich he has chosen for the establishment of his philosophy are, on the\nwhole, identical with those employed in all purely scientific\ninvestigation, namely, first experience, and secondly inference.\n\nBut here a grave difficulty at once presents itself. How, either by\nexperience or by inference, can we learn anything about the\ncommencements of the universe, as to which we have heard so much? How\nthe first bodies, whether organic or inorganic, actually arose, neither\nphilosophy nor science can definitely say, for the latter was not there\nto see, and the former has no facts on which to argue.[30] But if\nneither by observation, nor by clear inference, can the account that has\nbeen given be substantiated, that account cannot pretend to be\nscientific, for it rests not upon knowledge but upon speculation,--and\nas Professor Tait warns us,[31] \"That of which there is no knowledge is\nnot yet part of Science.\"\n\nThis plain consideration seems to account for a fact which is\nundoubtedly highly significant. Professor Huxley had certainly no\nprejudices against evolutionary systems, could they but be\nsatisfactorily established. He knew all that Professor Haeckel has urged\non behalf of his own theory, and showed how much he was in sympathy with\nit by naming after his friend the ill-starred _Bathybius Haeckelii_, the\ndeep-sea slime which was at first supposed to bridge the gulf between\nthe organic and the inorganic worlds, and to be living stuff in process\nof spontaneous manufacture. Nothing, in fact, as he himself admitted, in\nhis controversy with Dr. Bastian, could have suited him better than a\ndemonstration that Nature possesses all the powers necessary for her own\nprocesses, and that the explanation of all is within the scope of\nScience. But, at the same time, he reverenced scientific truth beyond\nanything else, and he was keenly sensible of the danger attending the\nuse of hypothetical explanations, leading to conclusions which cannot be\nexperimentally tested, which danger he carefully shunned.[32]\nAccordingly, not only did he never lend his countenance to what\nProfessor Haeckel represents as the inevitable conclusions of Science,\nbut he even plainly intimated that those who advanced such views were\ngoing much farther than Science warrants. The doctrine of Evolution, he\ndeclared,[33] is not only attacked on false grounds by its enemies, but\nis made by some of its friends to cover so much which is disputable, as\nto force him in self-defence to make his own position clear in its\nregard. And the first point of his explanation is to repudiate the idea\nthat we have any such knowledge as Professor Haeckel assumes. \"I have\nnothing to say,\" he writes, \"to any 'Philosophy of Evolution.'\"\n\nBeing thus necessarily destitute of support either directly from\nobservation or by inference from observed facts, it would seem that only\nin one way can Professor Haeckel's system of cosmogony, or\nworld-production, obtain any support from Science. If amongst the\noperations now in progress in the universe, is to be found evidence of\nan exhaustless and self-renewing energy, a mainspring capable of keeping\nthe machine going everlastingly, then undoubtedly there will be an\nexplanation forthcoming, which, whatever difficulties may still remain\non other grounds, will at least furnish a complete mechanical account of\nthings within the ken of Science. May we not suppose that this is what\nis claimed as being supplied by the \"Law of Substance,\" which is\nrepresented as the cornerstone of the whole edifice, the supreme triumph\nof scientific discovery, and, in fine, \"the universal law of\nevolution\"? Let us see how far such a notion can be styled scientific.\n\nAs has been shown, a \"Law\" is nothing but a statement that a certain\nkind of fact is found to occur in certain circumstances. Professor\nHaeckel has told us that the \"Law of Substance\" is a blend of two such\nstatements, namely, \"the Law of the persistency or indestructibility of\nmatter,\" which signifies that in no instance within our knowledge is any\nparticle of matter destroyed, and \"the Law of the persistence of force,\nor conservation of energy,\" which signifies that the sum of force, at\nwork in the world, and producing all phenomena, is similarly found to be\nunalterable.[34]\n\nIt must here first be observed that the term \"Conservation of Energy,\"\nis more correct and intelligible than \"Conservation of Force\"; by\n\"Energy\" being understood the power of doing \"work,\" that is to say, of\novercoming resistance.[35]\n\nIt is in this form alone that Force becomes subject to observation and\ncan be measured by Science, and the Law of Conservation which\nobservation reveals is thus stated: The sum of all the various energies\nin the universe is a constant quantity, which can be neither increased\nnor diminished, though it may be changed from one form to another;[36]\nsuch forms being motion, heat, chemical action, electricity, magnetism.\n\nBut another point is of far greater importance. The mode in which\nProfessor Haeckel states this fundamental Law is altogether deceptive.\nHe tells his readers only half the truth, and when the other half is\ntold, not only is his whole doctrine found to receive no support from\nthe Laws of Energy, but it is these very Laws which appear most\nincompatible with it.\n\nFor, along with the Law of the Conservation, there is another, of the\nDissipation of Energy. It is perfectly true, as Professor Haeckel often\nrepeats, that the sum of Energy existing in the universe remains ever\nthe same: but it is no less certain, as he unfortunately fails to remind\nhis readers, that the stock of Energy _available for the work of the\nuniverse_ is growing less every day. Though none is ever destroyed, much\nis constantly _lost_, being dissipated, or radiated into space, in the\nform of heat which can never be recaptured or translated into any form\nwhich can be of any practical avail. \"It is lost for ever as far as we\nare concerned.\"[37]\n\nFrom what we have heard concerning the Law of Substance it might\nnaturally be supposed that it certified us of the continued existence of\nthe power required to carry on the operations of Nature, and that,\naccordingly, reason bids us to suppose these operations to be\neverlasting. But this neglected element of the reckoning, or _Entropy_\nas it is styled, leads scientific men to an entirely different estimate.\nThus Professor Balfour Stewart writes:[38]\n\n     Although, therefore, in a strictly mechanical sense, there is a\n     conservation of energy, yet, as regards usefulness or fitness for\n     living beings, the energy of the universe is in process of\n     deterioration. Universally diffused heat forms what we may call the\n     great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger year\n     by year.\n\n     We have [he continues] regarded the universe, not as a collection\n     of matter, but rather as an energetic agent--in fact, as a lamp.\n     Now it has been well pointed out by Thomson,[39] that looked at in\n     this light, the universe is a system that had a beginning and must\n     have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we\n     could view the universe as a candle not lit, then it is perhaps\n     conceivable to regard it as having been always in existence; but if\n     we regard it rather as a candle that has been lit, we become\n     absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity,\n     and that a time will come when it will cease to burn. We are led to\n     look to a beginning in which the particles of matter were in a\n     diffuse chaotic state, but endowed with the power of gravitation,\n     and we are led to look to an end in which the whole universe will\n     be one equally heated inert mass, from which everything like life\n     or motion or beauty will have utterly gone away.\n\nIt is doubtless true that attempts have been made to show that this\nconclusion is not final, and that there may be resources whereby Nature\nis able to recoup herself, and to draw upon some bank unknown to us for\nher missing store. As we have seen, Professor Haeckel simply takes for\ngranted that some such means of recuperation exist and operate, and he\nis not wholly without countenance from others. Thus, no less an\nauthority than Sir William Crookes addressing the Chemical Society as\nits president, thus expressed himself:[40]\n\n     If we may hazard any conjectures ... we may I think premise that\n     the heat radiations propagated outwards, ... by some process of\n     nature unknown to us, are transformed at the confines of the\n     universe into the primary--the essential--motion of chemical atoms,\n     which the instant they are formed, gravitate inwards, and thus\n     restore to the universe the energy which would be lost to it\n     through radiant heat. Hence Sir William Thomson's startling\n     prediction falls to the ground.\n\nBut it need not be pointed out that if an advocate so eminent as Sir\nWilliam Crookes is reduced to pleas like this on its behalf, the case\nfor Renovation of Energy must be singularly destitute of anything\nresembling scientific support. Suppositions which are avowedly hazarded\nas conjectures, and which must appeal to processes of Nature of which we\nknow nothing, whatever authorship they may boast, have nothing to do\nwith Science, and possess no sort of value for our purpose.[41] It must\nof course be allowed that we may still be utterly in the dark as to the\nwhole of this question, and that further discoveries may one day\ncompletely upset all our present notions. But we are concerned with the\nevidence which Science has now before her, and with the assertion so\nconfidently advanced that this makes the Law of ceaseless Evolution an\nindisputable truth. We find, on the contrary, that this Law runs\ndirectly counter to the facts as they are at present known to us, and to\nthe conclusions drawn from them by the most authoritative\nrepresentatives of science.\n\nNor is it only our own globe and solar system that appear to be thus\nbound towards an inevitable doom. The eternal rhythm of life and death,\nof which we have been told as pervading the endless depths of space,\nhas no better title to scientific sanction. Like the minor province\nwhich we inhabit, the whole universe, we are assured,--so far as we have\nmeans of calculating,--must ultimately arrive at a condition of eternal\nstagnation,--its component parts being drawn close together by their\nmutual attractions,--so that motion ceases; while the heat replacing it\nbeing equally diffused, becomes as incapable of doing work as water\nbetween two pools on the same level is of turning a mill. As the writer\nlately quoted sums up the matter:[42]\n\n     Slow as the process of condensation is, it is not endless. In time\n     all the meteoric dust will be collected into stars or planets; and\n     in time the law of dissipation of energy will bring all these\n     bodies to a uniform temperature. So at last the movements due to\n     the original unequal distribution of matter will cease, and the\n     life of the universe will come to an end. We know of no process of\n     rejuvenescence, by means of which dissipation of energy and the\n     force of gravitation might be counteracted. Several attempts have\n     been made to refute the theory of the dissipation of energy, but\n     all have failed.\n\nThis, however, is but the first of many difficulties which must be\ndisposed of ere the account of the world's genesis which we are\nconsidering can pretend to our acceptance on the ground that reason and\nscience proclaim its truth.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\"THE SEVEN ENIGMAS\"\n\n\nThe doctrine that the universe is an automatic machine,--self-originated\nand self-sustained--undoubtedly rests upon a principle formally\nrecognized by some evolutionists, as the \"Law of Continuity,\" and taken\nfor granted by many who do not put it into words. This principle\nis,--that everything must always have happened according to the same\nlaws of Nature which operate now; that there can never have been a\n\"miracle,\" understanding by this term whatever is beyond the scope of\nnatural forces; and that, accordingly, the whole of the world's\nhistory,--one stage as much as another,--falls within the province of\nScience. By no one has this position been more clearly stated than by\nthe late Professor Romanes.\n\n     All minds [he tells us][43] with any instincts of science in their\n     composition have grown to distrust, on merely antecedent grounds,\n     any explanation which embodies a miraculous element. Such minds\n     have grown to regard all these explanations as mere expressions of\n     our own ignorance of natural causation; or, in other words, they\n     have come to regard it as an _\u00e0 priori_ truth that nature is always\n     uniform in respect of method or causation; that the reign of law is\n     universal; the principle of continuity ubiquitous.\n\nHe goes on to declare that \"The fact of evolution--or, which is the same\nthing, the fact of continuity in natural causation--has now been\nundoubtedly proved in many departments of nature,\" and that, in\nparticular, \"throughout the range of inorganic nature\" it is \"a\ndemonstrated fact.\"\n\nIf this be so, it must necessarily follow that the Laws of Nature, as\nScience finds them operating, sufficiently explain not only all that\nhappens in our present world, but also all that must have happened while\nthis world was being produced. According to what has already been said,\nby \"The Law of Continuity\" no more can be signified than that Continuity\nis a fact, that the world has actually come to be what it is through the\ncontinual operation of just the same natural forces as we find at work\nto-day. That things _did_ so happen we have not and cannot have, direct\nevidence; for no witness was there to report. We can but draw inferences\nfrom the present to the past, and argue that what Nature does to-day,\nshe must have been capable of doing yesterday and the day before. Only\nthus can continuity of natural laws possibly be established. It would\nobviously be vain to argue that we must suppose no other forces ever to\nhave acted than those we can observe, because, for all we know, other\nconditions may so have altered as to make their results altogether\ndifferent from any of which we have experience.\n\nIt is likewise manifest that if we are to speak of demonstrated facts,\nand of conclusions placed beyond rational possibility of doubt, proofs\nmust be forthcoming sufficient to compel scientific assent.\n\nAnd here lies the difficulty. Very much must unquestionably have\nhappened in the course of the world's making for which the Laws of\nNature as we find them now acting cannot account, and which, therefore,\nScience cannot attempt to explain. So we are assured by eminent\nscientific men,--men, too, who desire nothing more than to find an\nexplanation, but are driven, in search of one, as we have already seen\nSir W. Crookes, to plead the limitation of our knowledge, and that there\nmay be capabilities in Nature of which we are ignorant. But it remains\nalways true, that what we do not know is not yet part of Science, and\nthat if our scientific information, so far as it goes, is adverse to the\nLaw of Continuity, it is quite unscientific to bring arguments for the\nlaw not from our knowledge, but from our lack of it. Still more\nunscientific is it to proclaim that Science has pronounced judgment in a\nsense contrary to that of all the evidence hitherto presented to her.\n\nAmongst the men of Science who testify as above, we may begin with Herr\nDu Bois-Reymond, an avowed Evolutionist and Materialist, whom Professor\nHaeckel styles, \"the all-powerful secretary and dictator of the Berlin\nAcademy of Sciences.\"[44] He can be suspected of no prejudices which\nwould prevent him from accepting Professor Haeckel's cosmogony, if only\nhe found the evidence satisfactory. Far from this, however, he\ndeclares,[45] that the history of the universe confronts us with no less\nthan seven problems, for which Science has no solution to offer, and\nsome of which he holds to be for ever insoluble. These he styles\n\"Enigmas,\" and they are:\n\n(1) The nature of Matter and of Force.\n\n(2) The origin of Motion.\n\n(3) The origin of Life.\n\n(4) The apparently designed order of Nature.\n\n(5) The origin of sensation and consciousness.\n\n(6) The origin of rational thought and speech.\n\n(7) Free-will.\n\nThe first, second, and fifth of these are in the opinion of Du\nBois-Reymond \"transcendental,\" or beyond possibility of solution. The\nothers, in his judgment, have certainly not yet been solved, but\n_perhaps_ may be solved some day. As to the last, he much doubts whether\nit should not also be classed as \"transcendental.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt thus appears that in the judgment of a competent witness, and one\nno-wise biassed by preconception or prejudice, so far from it being\ntrue that Professor Haeckel's story of the universe is imperiously\nimposed on us by the results of Science, not one but several great gulfs\nin the course of that history must have been bridged over somehow, which\nScience confesses she cannot bridge, so far as her present knowledge\ngoes, that is to say, so far as she is Science at all.\n\nProfessor Haeckel, it is true, loudly pronounces Du Bois-Reymond's\ndeclaration to be mere \"dogmatism\"[46] of a \"shallow and illogical\ncharacter,\" and he undertakes to show that with the help of his own\nphilosophy the enigmas cease to be enigmatical.\n\n     In my opinion [he writes] the three transcendental problems (1, 2\n     and 5) are settled by our conception of substance; the three which\n     he [Du Bois-Reymond] considers difficult, though soluble[47] (3, 4\n     and 6) are decisively answered by our modern theory of evolution;\n     the seventh and last, the freedom of the will, is not an object for\n     critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based\n     on an illusion, and has no real existence.\n\nHow far such a mode of rebuking dogmatism appears convincing, must of\ncourse depend on what the reader understands by an argument. Some points\nalready considered may help us to a right estimate of proofs which are\nbased upon \"Our conception of substance,\" or \"Our modern theory of\nevolution,\" and we shall presently inspect more closely the nature of\nthe difficulties which we are invited so summarily to dismiss.\nMeanwhile, even though not final or conclusive, the testimony of such a\nman as Du Bois-Reymond serves at least to prove that it is possible to\nbe thoroughly familiar with Science and her teaching, and yet to believe\nthat as yet she knows nothing at all concerning questions which, as we\nhave been assured, she has conclusively answered. And, as we shall\npresently see, if Professor Haeckel's account of things be the true one,\nthere are many more scientific men of the first rank who are equally in\nthe dark.\n\nIn a word, while according to Professor Haeckel there is in the universe\nbut one Riddle, which he tells us he has solved,--in the opinion of\nanother who is certainly no less entitled to speak in the name of\nScience, there yet remain seven to which no answer has yet been given,\nand to three, at least, of which none will ever be found.\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nMATTER AND MOTION\n\n\nIn the forefront of the problems which have been pronounced to be not\nonly unsolved but insoluble, are the nature and origin of the ultimate\nfactors arrived at by Science in her study of the constitution of the\nuniverse,--Matter, Force, and Motion.\n\nWith the first and last of these alone need we at present concern\nourselves, for \"Force,\" as Science knows it, is always associated with\nMatter, and signifies no more in her terminology than that which\nproduces, or tends to produce Motion. On the other hand, we are\ntold,[48] that \"The contents of the material universe may be expressed\nin terms of Matter and Motion.\"\n\nBy \"Matter\" is understood \"Sensible Substance,\" the stuff composing all\nof which our senses tell us, and which forms the object of Scientific\ninvestigation. What do we know concerning this raw material whereof\nworlds are made?\n\nAs we have seen, Professor Haeckel and his school are ready to tell us.\nMatter, we are assured,[49] is self-existent and imperishable, \"it has\nno beginning and no end; it is eternity.\" Together with Ether, it\noccupies infinite and boundless space. It is in ceaseless motion; and\nits interminable modifications produce everything that ever was or ever\nwill be. Movement[50] is one of the \"innate and original properties\" of\nMatter. So are Sensation and Will,[51] but these, we are warned,[52] are\n\"unconscious.\"\n\nObviously, however, it is not enough that these things should be said,\nthey require likewise to be proved; and the question must immediately\nsuggest itself, Whence is proof to come? Not, by any possibility, from\nobservation and experiment. For who can speak, of his own knowledge, to\neternity or infinity? The only conceivable supposition is that Science\nhas so thoroughly mastered the nature and properties of Matter here and\nnow, as to be furnished with evidence unmistakably pointing to the above\nconclusions. Thus alone can she be quoted on their behalf; and it must\nalways be remembered that the philosophy which we are examining is\nnothing if not scientific.\n\nBut, in the first place, is it quite clear of what our philosophers are\nspeaking? They use the term \"Matter\" as though it represented some one\ndefinite thing: but this is very far from being the case.\n\n     We must remember [says Lord Grimthorpe][53] that matter is not an\n     unit, as a creator is, and that talking of it so is merely a\n     rhetorical artifice when used in philosophical inquiries.... Matter\n     is nothing but the sum of all the ultimate particles or atoms\n     contained in the universe, or in any particular mass that we are\n     dealing with.... A very large proportion of the atoms of the\n     universe have never been within millions and billions of miles of\n     each other.\n\nTherefore, he goes on to urge, the doctrine of the self-existence of\nMatter, must mean that each several atom is self-existent, or \"every\natom its own god.\" How comes it then that they all obey the same \"Laws\"?\nHow have their various provinces been allotted? Above all, how are they\nnot all the same, but--so far as we know--divided into classes widely\ndifferent from one another? For, according to our present\nknowledge,--and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves that upon this\nalone can any sound conclusion be based,--there are, in round numbers,\nsome seventy different species of atoms, whose diverse qualities are\nabsolutely necessary for the production of the world. Had all atoms been\nof one kind, we could have had none even of what used to be called the\nFour Elements,--neither Earth, Air, Fire, nor Water.\n\nBut,--apart from this,--What is known concerning this same \"Matter\"? Has\nScience so thoroughly fathomed its constitution as to be able to\ndeclare that it possesses all the properties we have heard assigned to\nit,--Sensation and Will, even of the unconscious kind, whatever that may\nbe,--locomotive power,--eternity,--and, in its collective capacity,\nimmensity?\n\nSo far from this being the case, scientific men who were most willing,\nand even anxious, to assign to Matter a foremost, if not _the_ foremost,\nplace in Nature, have done so precisely upon the ground, not of our\nknowledge, but of our ignorance. No better examples need be sought than\nProfessor Huxley, and Professor Tyndall, who alike agreed, in the words\nof the latter,[54] \"to discern in Matter the promise and potency of\nevery form and quality of life.\" But Huxley took his stand on the\ndeclaration, that we know so little about Matter as to make it\nimpossible to say of what it may not be capable, for we cannot so much\nas be certain of its existence, and use the term only \"for the unknown\nand hypothetical causes of our own states of consciousness,\"[55] while\nTyndall described the process, whereby the promise and potency are\nrealized, as \"the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to the\nintellect of man.\"\n\nSpeculations thus founded upon the absence of evidence, whatever else\nthey may be, are certainly no part of Science; and when we turn to what,\nbeing established by scientific methods, is a possible basis of\nscientific argument, we find that in every instance it contradicts\ninstead of supporting the assertions we have heard.\n\nTo begin with the question of Motion, as being both of supreme\nimportance, and one more open than some others to observation and\nexperiment. According to Professor Haeckel's teaching, \"movement is an\ninnate and original property of substance,\" that is to say of Matter,\nand in consequence, \"Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted\nmovement and transformation.\" It is by thus attributing to matter an\ninherent determination to move that he meets Du Bois-Reymond's\ndifficulty as to the origin of motion.\n\nBut this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's Laws, which\nare universally recognized as the most firmly established and\nunquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us that a\nbody at rest will continue at rest for ever, unless compelled by some\nforce to move; just as a body in motion will continue to move at the\nsame rate and in the same direction, unless compelled by force to arrest\nor alter its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole\nof our Natural Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for\nthe idea that Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is\nthus quite unscientific. Not self-movement but _Inertia_ is the property\nwhich Science ascribes to Matter.[56] It may further be observed that\nthe idea of inherent motion is absurd and unintelligible; for movement\ncannot be in more than one direction at a time: so that a mass, or an\natom, of Matter could tend to move only by having an intrinsic impulse\nin a straight line towards some one particular point. If it should tend\nto move indifferently, in all directions at once, it would remain\nmotionless, each such tendency being neutralized by its opposite.\n\nAs to the further claim made on behalf of Matter to be endowed with\nSensation and Will, of any description, it must be enough to say that no\none has ever pretended to find any evidence whatever to this effect, or\nto detect the faintest trace of such properties;--and that on the\ncontrary, all experience shows inorganic Matter, (that is, Matter not\nincorporated in living animals or plants,) to be utterly lifeless and\ninert. It is a mere abuse and perversion of terms to speak of Science as\ncountenancing any conclusion but that to which such experience points.\nThe attempt to invest Matter with these attributes Professor Tait\nstigmatizes as \"non-science,\" or \"pseudo-science.\"[57]\n\n     The Pygmalions of modern days [he writes] do not require to beseech\n     Aphrodit\u00e9 to animate the ivory for them. Like the savage with his\n     _Totem_, they have themselves already attributed life to it.... The\n     latest phase of this peculiar non-science tells us that all Matter\n     is _alive_; or at least that it contains \"the promise and potency\"\n     (whatever these may be) \"of all terrestrial life.\" ... So much for\n     the attempts to introduce into Science an element altogether\n     incompatible with the fundamental conditions of its existence.\n\nIn fine, to make us realize not merely how extremely narrow are the\nbounds of our knowledge, but even how much narrower they may be than we\nsuppose, there enters upon the scene Radium, like the golden apple that\ncame to disturb the harmony of the celestials. What lessons this\nturbulent and unconventional element will ultimately be found to teach,\nand how far it will revolutionize the laws of Nature as hitherto\naccepted, remains, of course, to be seen: but this at least is clear. In\npresence of it, scientific men find that they are sure of nothing they\nthought most certain, not of the indestructibility of matter itself, on\nwhich is based that Law of Substance which we have seen made responsible\nfor so much.\n\nIt had been thought that whatever else might change or perish the atoms\nof which we have heard, as the ultimate constituents of Matter, were\nbeyond the reach of any vicissitude. \"No man,\" said Dalton, their\ndiscoverer, \"can split an atom.\" Thus too Mr. Clodd, while acknowledging\nthat the constitution even of atoms may some day be found to be liable\nto disorder and decay, clearly teaches that, as a practical certainty,\nwe have in them got to something final. Taking one particular kind, an\noxygen atom, as a text, he thus discourses:[58]\n\n     It matters not into how many myriad substances--animal, plant, or\n     mineral--an atom of oxygen may have entered, nor what isolation it\n     has undergone: bond or free, it retains its own qualities. It\n     matters not how many millions of years have elapsed during these\n     changes, age cannot wither or weaken it; amidst all the fierce play\n     of the mighty agencies to which it has been subjected it remains\n     unbroken and unworn; to it we may apply the ancient words, \"the\n     things which are not seen are eternal.\"\n\nBut now, with the recognition of radio-activity, and the disintegration\nof atoms into their constituent \"electrons\" which this is held to\nevidence, we have changed all that. Such disintegration, it is affirmed,\nmust imply dissolution and death, alike of the atoms themselves and of\nthe universe which they compose. As Sir William Crookes told the\nphysicists assembled at Berlin, June, 1903:\n\n     This fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal,\n     and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk; it works\n     in the sunshine and raindrops, in lightnings and flame; it prevails\n     in the waterfall and the stormy sea.\n\nMatter he consequently regards as doomed to destruction.[59] Sooner or\nlater, it will have dissolved into the \"formless mist\" of \"prothyle\"[60]\nand \"the hour-hand of eternity will have completed one revolution.\"\n\nConsequently, we are told,[61]\n\n     The \"dissipation of energy\" has found its correlative in the\n     \"dissolution of matter.\" We are confronted with an appalling sense\n     of desolation--of quasi-annihilation.\n\nIt is no doubt true, here again, that such judgments cannot be called\nfinal, and that not all scientific men will accept them as they stand.\nBut all alike are forced to agree that our previous notions are\ncompletely upset, and that we are compelled to recognize the fact that\nof these fundamental questions we know far less than the little we\nseemed to know. What, then, is to be thought of Professor Haeckel's\nconfident utterances, which could be justified only on the supposition\nthat we know everything? And what becomes of the famous Law of\nSubstance, if both its parts are found thus to contradict the conclusion\nhe would draw from it?\n\nThe case is thus summed up by the writer of the article just cited:\n\n     The discovery of radio-activity is one of the most momentous in the\n     history of science. \"There has been a vivid new start\" (we again\n     borrow Sir William Crookes' expression). \"Our physicists have\n     remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter.\" The\n     remodelling indeed has hardly commenced.... What is undeniable is\n     that the Daltonian atom has, within a century of its acceptance as\n     a fundamental reality, suffered disruption. Its proper place in\n     nature is not that formerly assigned to it, ... its reputation for\n     inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever. Each of these\n     supposed \"ultimates\" is now known to be the scene of indescribable\n     activities, a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of\n     parts, a star-cluster in miniature, subject to all kinds of\n     dynamical vicissitudes, to perturbation, acceleration, internal\n     friction, total or partial disruption. And to each is appointed a\n     fixed term of existence. Sooner or later, the balance of\n     equilibrium is tilted, disturbance eventuates in overthrow; the\n     tiny exquisite system finally breaks up. Of atoms, as of men, it\n     may be said with truth, \"_Quisque suos patitur manes_.\"\n\n\"Here,\" in fact, \"we meet the impenetrable secret of creative\nagency.\"[62]\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\nTHE PROBLEM OF LIFE\n\n\nThe question concerning the origin and nature of Life is of supreme and\nvital importance not only for those who speak of Evolution as a force or\nprinciple by which everything is guided and governed, but also for such\nas understand by the term no more than a process which they say has\nactually occurred. Evolutionists of this second class disclaim, with\nHuxley, any \"philosophy of Evolution.\" They are content to take the\nworld as a going concern, at the farthest point in the past to which,\neven speculatively, Science can trace it, as that vast primordial nebula\nof which we have heard.[63] Given this,--assuming the existence of such\na nebula, constituted as they suppose,--they believe that the whole\nsubsequent history of the world is fully explained by the uniform action\nof the same laws of matter which we find in operation to-day. Not only\nis the establishment of our Solar System, of sun and planets, to be\nthus accounted for, but likewise the production of life, of the organic\nworld of plants and animals.\n\nHence it necessarily follows that life must originally have been evolved\nnaturally from lifeless matter, for all are agreed that not only in the\nnebula, but on the earth when it first started its independent career,\nlife did not, and could not, exist.\n\n     There has been [says Virchow][64] a beginning of life, since\n     geology points to epochs in the formation of the earth when life\n     was impossible, and when no vestige of it is to be found.\n\n     If the evolution hypothesis is true, [says Huxley][65] living\n     matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the\n     hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one time such that\n     living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely\n     incompatible with the gaseous state.\n\n     There was a time [says Tyndall][66] when the earth was a red-hot\n     molten globe, on which no life could exist.\n\nAccordingly, as Professor Huxley acknowledges, spontaneous generation is\nan evolutionary necessity. Unless such generation can be shown to have\ntaken place, or at the very least unless it can be shown to be naturally\npossible, the theory which requires it cannot be an established truth.\nBut it is precisely as a scientifically established truth that the\ndoctrine of Evolution is presented to us, so firmly established indeed\nthat we are warned \"to doubt it is to doubt science.\"[67] It presents\nitself, moreover, as the most precious result of modern research, the\nappearance of which is as a sunrise illuminating the field of\nknowledge.[68]\n\nThis being so, and it being the first principle of Science that we\nshould take nothing on faith and accept only what can be proved, it is\nour plain duty to satisfy ourselves, as scientific methods alone can\nrightly satisfy us, that a doctrine of such paramount importance is\nentitled to demand our acceptance.\n\nWhat methods can claim to be scientific, all are agreed. Advances in\nscience, Professor Tait warns us,[69]\n\n     come or not, as we remember or forget that our Science is to be\n     based entirely upon experiment, or mathematical deduction from\n     experiment.\n\n     Men of science [says Tyndall] prolong the method of nature from the\n     present into the past. The observed uniformity of nature is their\n     only guide.[70]\n\n     The man of science [says Huxley] has learned to believe in\n     justification, not by faith, but by verification.[71]\n\nIn this manner must we test the Evolution theory, and spontaneous\ngeneration as an essential element thereof. We will begin with\nProfessor Huxley's statement of what he styles \"the fundamental\nproposition of Evolution.\"[72]\n\n     That proposition is [he writes] that the whole world, living and\n     not-living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to\n     definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which\n     the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be\n     true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay,\n     potentially, in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient\n     intelligence could, from a knowledge of that vapour, have\n     predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869[73] with\n     as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the breath in\n     a cold winter's day.\n\nThat is to say, the supposed nebula was a vast piece of mechanism, of\nunimaginable complexity, the component parts of which under the\ninfluence of such forces as gravitation, heat, chemical affinity,\nelectricity and magnetism, have produced everything that has since\nappeared on earth, vegetable and animal life amongst the rest. How are\nwe to assure ourselves that such was really the case?\n\nProfessor Tyndall has told us that the only scientific method is to\nprolong the method of nature from the present into the past, taking her\nobserved uniformity for our only guide, and in like manner we have heard\nit laid down by Professor Romanes, that we must assume as a first\nprinciple that the laws of nature are always and everywhere the same,\nand that by their uniform operation everything is done. It is therefore\nquite clear that as no man was present when life first made its\nappearance, to observe and record whence it came, the only way in which\nwe can possibly proceed, without violating every scientific canon, is to\nargue from what happens now, to what must have happened then,--to show\nthat inorganic matter can in fact generate organic life, and to conclude\nthat the same laws must have worked the same results in the past as they\ndo in the present.\n\nBut this is precisely what cannot be done, for one of the most\nconclusive results of modern research has been to show that in the\npresent world spontaneous generation never occurs, that living things\ncome only from living parents, and that from organic matter alone can\nthe smallest particle of organic matter be derived. _Omne vivum e vivo,\nomnis cellula e cellula, omnis nucleus e nucleo._ Upon this point there\nis now complete agreement amongst scientific authorities, and what is\nmost remarkable, none are more strenuous in upholding the doctrine of\n_Biogenesis_,[74] than some of those who with equal vehemence proclaim\nthe doctrine of Evolution for which the occurrence of spontaneous\ngeneration is a necessity.\n\nNever, for example, were there Evolutionists more pronounced than\nProfessors Huxley and Tyndall, and they both saw clearly that without\nspontaneous generation there could not have been evolution such as they\nmaintained. Yet when the occurrence of spontaneous generation, here and\nnow, was asserted by Bastian and Burdon Sanderson, they, following in\nthe wake of Pasteur, repudiated the notion, and Tyndall in particular\nconclusively disproved the experiments by which it was supported.[75] As\nHuxley wrote to Charles Kingsley:[76]\n\n     I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of spontogenesis.\n     Against the doctrine of spontaneous generation in the abstract I\n     have nothing to say. Indeed it is a necessary corollary from\n     Darwin's views if legitimately carried out.\n\nA few years later, writing to Dr. Dohrn[77] upon the same subject, he\nmade use of a phrase--which in his mouth expressed the uttermost limit\nof disbelief: \"Transubstantiation will be nothing to this if it turns\nout true.\"\n\nIn the same year as President of the British Association he chose for\nthe subject of his inaugural address, \"Biogenesis and Abiogenesis,\" and,\nafter a careful examination of the case for each, pronounced the former\n\"to be victorious all along the line.\"\n\nIn spite of all this, however, he assured himself as an Evolutionist\nthat spontaneous generation must once have been not only a possibility\nbut a fact. In the same Presidential address, after piling up evidence\nagainst it--he thus continued:[78]\n\n     But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I\n     must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend\n     to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place\n     in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic\n     chemistry, molecular physics and physiology yet in their infancy,\n     and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the\n     height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under\n     which matter assumes the properties we call \"vital\" may not, some\n     day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in\n     affirming is that I see no reason for affirming that the feat has\n     been performed yet.\n\n     And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find\n     no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of\n     any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of\n     its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a\n     serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in\n     the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the\n     mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be\n     using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where\n     belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of\n     geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the\n     earth was passing through physical and dynamical conditions, which\n     it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I\n     should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm\n     from not living matter.... That is the expectation to which\n     analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect\n     that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of\n     philosophical faith.\n\nHere we have the whole state of the case put for us in a nutshell. On\nthe one hand, all known facts are against the idea of spontaneous\ngeneration, and therefore, so far as she can at present go, the verdict\nof Science must condemn that supposition. But, on the other hand, the\nfundamental principle of Evolution cannot be justified unless\nspontaneous generation has taken place, and accordingly, although\nEvolution is the very thing which we should be engaged in establishing\nby the evidence of facts, it is held to be reasonable and scientific to\ninfer that facts which we cannot verify must exist because they are\nwanted. It is admitted that the requisite evidence is lacking, and\ntherefore we must not go so far as to express belief in the facts: but\nwe may indulge in expectations,--which seem, however, to imply belief in\nthe thing expected,--and meanwhile we may go on believing firmly in the\nEvolution theory itself, which includes belief in the missing facts.\nThis, we are told, is \"philosophical faith.\" But, to say nothing of what\nwe have heard from others, Professor Huxley elsewhere[79] warns us\nagainst faith as the one unpardonable sin: and as we have heard him\ndeclare the man of science has learned to believe in justification, not\nby faith, but by verification.\n\nAnd as to the expectation which he avowed, there appears to be no slight\nforce in the response of his adversary Dr. Bastian:[80]\n\n     What reason [he asks] does Professor Huxley give in explanation of\n     his supposition?... The only reason distinctly implied is because\n     the physical and chemical conditions of the earth's surface were\n     different in the past from what they are now. And yet, concerning\n     the exact nature of their differences, or the degree in which the\n     different sets of conditions would respectively favour the\n     occurrence or arrest of an evolution of living matter, Professor\n     Huxley cannot possess even the vaguest knowledge. He chooses to\n     assume that the unknown conditions existing in the past were more\n     favourable to _Archebiosis_ (life-evolution) than those now in\n     operation. This, however, is an assumption which may be entirely\n     opposed to the facts.\n\nIt is thus hard to understand how Professor Huxley could profess to\njustify his expectations by verification, for that the above account of\nthe matter is no-wise overstated we have his own acknowledgment:[81]\n\n     Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter,\n     it may be said that we know absolutely nothing.... Science has no\n     means to form an opinion on the commencement of life; we can only\n     make conjectures without any scientific value.\n\nSuch a witness as Huxley might well suffice, but the question is so\nimportant as to make it advisable to call some others, though only a few\namongst many who testify to the same effect.\n\nLike his friend and ally Huxley, Professor Tyndall believed that\nspontaneous generation had once occurred, and denied that it occurs now.\nAs to the former article of his creed he was even more pronounced in his\nmaterialism. We have already heard him proclaim that in matter is to be\ndiscerned the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. He likewise\ninclined to believe that not only life but consciousness is immanent\neverywhere, in the vegetable and mineral no less than in the animal\nworld,[82] and that not merely life and consciousness, but:\n\n     All our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our\n     art--Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael--are potential in the\n     fires of the sun.[83]\n\nBeliefs such as these might be thought to imply that the genesis of life\nis a simple affair, but Tyndall was no less convinced than Huxley that,\nas things are, it cannot be obtained without antecedent life on which\nto draw. Having described the experiments devised to test the matter, he\nthus concludes:[84]\n\n     Here, as in all other cases, the evidence in favour of spontaneous\n     generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer.\n\nAt the same time, he was equally certain that life must have had an\ninorganic origin and that Science bids us so to believe. His various\nutterances are not, it is true, very easily reconciled. On the one hand\nhe lays it down that \"Without verification a theoretic conception is a\nmere figment of the intellect.\" On the other hand in his Belfast Address\nhe thus expressed himself:\n\n     Believing, as I do, in the continuity of nature, I cannot stop\n     abruptly where our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision\n     of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By a\n     necessity engendered and justified by Science I cross the boundary\n     of the experimental evidence.... If you ask me whether there exists\n     the least evidence to prove that any form of life can be developed\n     out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life.... [men of\n     science] will frankly admit their inability to point to any\n     satisfactory experimental proof that life can be developed, save\n     from demonstrable antecedent life.\n\nFar, however, from being a mere figment, his mental vision is\nrepresented as the most unalloyed product of reason. He writes:[85]\n\n     Were not man's origin implicated, we should accept without a murmur\n     the derivation of animal and vegetable life from what we call\n     inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way\n     and no other.\n\nThe conclusion of pure intellect, however, having nothing to show for\nitself in the way of evidence, we are again referred to a condition of\nthings concerning which we know, and can know, nothing.\n\n     Supposing [writes the Professor][86] a planet carved from the sun,\n     set spinning round an axis, and revolving round the sun at a\n     distance from him equal to that of our earth, would one of the\n     consequences of its refrigeration be the development of organic\n     forms? I lean to the affirmative.\n\nIt is no doubt interesting to know to what opinion the Professor\ninclined, but is this sort of thing Science?\n\nIn the same manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, the philosopher of evolution\n_par excellence_, thus reports:[87]\n\n     Biologists in general agree that in the present state of the world\n     no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of\n     non-living matter. They do not deny, however, that at a remote\n     period in the past, when the temperature of the surface of the\n     earth was much higher than at present, and other physical\n     conditions were _unlike those we know_,[88] inorganic matter,\n     through successive complications, gave origin to organic\n     matter.[89]\n\nMr. Darwin himself, who is constantly supposed to have upheld, or even\nto have demonstrated, the fact of spontaneous generation, is amongst the\nstrongest witnesses against it. He was indeed disposed to believe that\nthe living will some day be found to be producible from the lifeless,\nthe ground of his expectation being the \"Law of Continuity,\"[90] or the\nassumption that from the beginning of nature to the end one only kind of\nlaw uniformly operates, namely the same as we now experience. But this\nis to assume the whole question at issue, for unless it can be shewn\nthat there has been spontaneous generation, we cannot be assured that\nthere is such a Law of Continuity. And despite his expectation Darwin\nalways denied that the origin of life has been--sometimes even that it\ncan be--explained. Thus he wrote on various occasions:\n\n     It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one\n     might as well think of the origin of matter.[91]\n\n     As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and\n     though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will\n     be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the\n     confines of Science.[92]\n\n     No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced\n     in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic\n     matter.[93]\n\nHere we may conveniently pause and take stock of our results. On the one\nhand, we are bidden in the name of Science to learn the past from the\npresent, and the present from observation and experiment alone. On the\nother, we are invited to believe in an occurrence which observation and\nexperiment negative in the present, on the ground that the circumstances\nmust once have been entirely different from any with which we are\nacquainted. Obviously, the real motive of belief is that na\u00efvely\nexpressed by Professor Haeckel, who tells us that spontaneous generation\nis proved by the doctrine of Evolution;[94] which then in its turn is\nproved by spontaneous generation.\n\nTwo points must however be noticed in which it is attempted to find\npresent evidence in favour of spontaneous generation.\n\nFirst, there is Protoplasm--the \"Physical Basis of Life,\" or Living\nMatter, being that form of matter by which life is always accompanied.\nIn this no chemical element unknown elsewhere, is to be found; the cells\nof which it consists are compounded of Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and\nCarbon; and it has been argued, especially by Huxley, that it is\ntherefore not different in kind from other compounds; that as Oxygen and\nHydrogen form water, Oxygen and Carbon, Carbonic Acid, Hydrogen and\nNitrogen, Ammonia,--so the four combined, in proper circumstances and\nproportions, make Living Matter, without the aid of any vital force or\nprinciple. And Haeckel with his habitual audacity foretells the\nartificial production of Protoplasm for purposes of commerce. But, as\nMr. Stirling observes,[95] man has always known that he is made of dust,\nand that the only part of him perceptible to sense is substantially the\nsame as the earth beneath his feet. All that he now learns in addition\nis that when such matter is wedded to life it undergoes marvellous\ntransformations which in part at least we are able to recognize, but are\nwholly unable to comprehend. This Professor Huxley himself admits:\n\n\n     The properties of living matter [he writes][96] distinguish it\n     absolutely from all other kinds of things, and the present state of\n     knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the\n     not-living.\n\nNot only that: the subject is full of complexities of which Professor\nHuxley gives no hint, and which it would even seem he did not himself\nperceive. In his celebrated lecture on the Physical Basis of Life[97] he\ngives his hearers to understand that all Protoplasm is the same, that\nits particles are as the bricks with which any sort of edifice may be\nconstructed, a cathedral or a gin-shop, a palace or a hovel. The\nprotoplasm of a mushroom, for instance, he declares to be essentially\nidentical with that of him who eats it, into which it is most readily\nconvertible. He also speaks of the effect of eating mutton being to\n\"transubstantiate sheep into man.\" But, positive as are these\nstatements, they are far from representing scientific truths, and we are\ntold by Sir William Thiselton-Dyer that he himself would not know what\nto do with a candidate who should advance such views in an\nexamination.[98] As to the mushroom and the mutton, Sir William adds,\nthat except the definition of a crab, as a red fish that runs backwards,\nattributed to the French Academy, he can call to mind no statement \"so\ncompact of error.\"\n\nIn reality, instead of all Protoplasm being the same, the differences\nare infinite. Particles from different sources may be indistinguishable\nby the microscope or by any test that chemistry can apply, but this only\nincreases the mystery of their nature, for each has its own functions\nand will perform no others. The Protoplasm of a plant will do what that\nof an animal, seemingly identical, cannot do. That of a fish will\nconvert the same nutriment into quite a different formation from that of\na man.\n\n     It is no doubt true that a particle of fungoid differs in no\n     appreciable physical respect from one of human protoplasm, yet the\n     former will never emerge from the fate of the humble mushroom,\n     while the other may be instinct with the thoughts of a Prime\n     Minister.[99]\n\nAs Mr. Stirling sums up the matter:[100]\n\n     There is nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,\n     muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues, no one\n     of which but produces only its own kind, and is uninterchangeable\n     with the rest. Lastly, we have the overwhelming fact that there is\n     the infinitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely\n     different plants and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm,\n     as in the case of the various tissues, but produces its own kind,\n     and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest.\n\nIt thus appears that the character of Protoplasm, far from making it\neasier to conceive the mechanical production of living things, does but\nimmensely aggravate the difficulty. As Sir William Thiselton-Dyer avows:\n\"I do not see even the beginning of a materialistic theory of\nprotoplasm.\" And Haeckel's idea that we shall succeed in creating\norganic life does not commend itself to such an authority as Sir Henry\nRoscoe:\n\n     It is true [he says][101] that there are those who profess to\n     foresee that the day will arise when the chemist, by a succession\n     of constructive efforts may pass beyond albumen, and gather the\n     elements of lifeless matter into a living structure. Whatever may\n     be said of this from other standpoints, the chemist can only say\n     that at present no such problem lies within his province.\n     Protoplasm, with which the simplest manifestations of life are\n     associated, is not a compound, but a structure built up of\n     compounds. The chemist may successfully synthesize any of its\n     component compounds, but he has no more reason to look forward to\n     the synthetic production of the structure than to imagine that the\n     synthesis of gallic acid leads to the artificial production of\n     gall-nuts.\n\nAnd M. de Quatrefages thus sums up the conclusions at which he arrives\nfrom minute study of the lowest forms of life:[102]\n\n\n     I make bold to affirm that the deeper Science penetrates into the\n     secrets of organization and phenomena, the more does she\n     demonstrate how wide and how profound is the abyss which separates\n     brute matter from living things.\n\nThe other point requiring notice is crystallization. Inorganic matter,\nas we know, can build up crystals, the wonderful structure of which\nresults from the molecular properties of the substance crystallized. Why\nthen, some would ask, may not matter in the same manner produce\nProtoplasm?\n\nBut, in the first place, this, as we have heard, is what it is never\nfound to do. Crystals we can produce at pleasure, in what quantity we\nwill. But all efforts have not yet succeeded in obtaining the most\nminute speck of living matter. Moreover, nothing can be more widely\ndifferent from organic structures than crystals. The latter are always\nmathematical, the former never: the latter grow by outside accretion, of\nthe one kind of particles whereof they consist: the former by absorption\nand assimilation of various foreign substances: the latter are wholly\nindependent of anything like an ancestor: for the former an ancestor is\nin our experience indispensable: crystals can be dissolved and\nrecrystallized: living matter once destroyed can never be reconstituted.\nAbove all, the particles incorporated in the crystal are absolutely\nquiescent, so far as any portion of matter can be said to be so, no more\nable to change their position without external force than the bricks in\na wall, while those in living tissue at once become subject to \"the\nwhirlwind of life,\" involving constant change the cessation of which is\ndeath.\n\n     It is inexplicable to me [says M. de Quatrefages][103] that some\n     men whose merits I otherwise acknowledge, should have compared\n     crystals to the simplest living forms.... These forms are the\n     antipodes of the crystal from every point of view.\n\nTo the same effect speaks Mr. A. R. Wallace, Mr. Darwin's associate in\nthe discovery of the Darwinian theory. In a work expressly devoted to\nthe vindication of that theory, Mr. Wallace declares that far from the\nway of evolution being made clear by Science from end to end--\"there are\nat least three stages in the development of the organic world where some\nnew cause or power must necessarily have come into action.\" And at the\nhead of them he places that which we are now considering, writing\nthus:[104]\n\n     The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the\n     earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it\n     arose, first appeared.... There is in this something quite beyond\n     and apart from chemical changes however complex; and it has been\n     well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the\n     world, possessing altogether new powers....[105]\n\nSuch testimonies are sufficient for our present purpose. In face of them\nit cannot be pretended that Science _knows_ anything of spontaneous\ngeneration or gives her verdict in its favour. On the contrary, as\nProfessor Tait declares:[106]\n\n     To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to speak of its\n     higher forms, still less of volition and consciousness, can be\n     fully _explained_ on physical principles alone, ... is simply\n     unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science\n     which can lend the slightest support to such an idea.... To suppose\n     that life, even in its lowest form, is wholly material, involves\n     either a denial of the truth of Newton's laws of motion, or an\n     erroneous use of the term \"Matter.\" Both are alike unscientific.\n\nYet it is precisely in the name of Science that we have been told to\naccept the spontaneous origin of life from inorganic matter, as a\nclearly demonstrated truth, and no riddle at all.\n\nBut as Professor Virchow, Evolutionist and Materialist as he was, well\nsaid in regard of this very point in the Munich Congress of 1877:\n\n     If we would speak frankly, we must admit that naturalists may well\n     have some little sympathy for the _generatio aequivoca_\n     [spontaneous generation]. If it were capable of proof, it would\n     indeed be beautiful! But, we must acknowledge, it has not yet been\n     proved. The proofs of it are still wanting.... Whoever recalls to\n     mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts to discover a\n     decided support for the _generatio aequivoca_ in the lower forms of\n     transition from the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it\n     doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly discredited,\n     should be in any way accepted as the basis of all our views of\n     life.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\nANIMAL AND MAN\n\n\nLeaving for later consideration the fourth of Du Bois-Reymond's Unsolved\nEnigmas, namely the seemingly pre-ordained order of the universe, we may\nconveniently group together the three which follow it, as much\nresembling that which has just occupied our attention. These problems,\nit will be remembered, are (_a_) the origin of simple sensation and\nconsciousness, or, in other words, of the faculties possessed by\nanimals; (_b_) that of rational thought and speech; (_c_)\nFree-will.--Here again we are bound to ask, in the name of right reason\nand common-sense, what light has really been thrown on such questions by\nScience, and how far she has changed their aspect,--that so we may guard\nagainst the delusion of imagining ourselves to be in possession of more\nknowledge than we actually possess.\n\n(_a_) _Simple sensation and consciousness._ As regards the actual origin\nof the higher form of life which distinguishes the animal from the\nvegetable, we are obviously no better informed than we have found\nourselves to be concerning the first beginnings of life in any form,--no\nevidence as to the actual facts being available, or even possible, for\nour enlightenment. Once more we can only argue from the present to the\npast, and enquire whether the progress of science has made it more\nreasonable to suppose than it seemed in pre-scientific days that animal\nlife has been spontaneously evolved, either from inanimate matter or\nfrom the vegetative life of plants. This enquiry so much resembles that\nwhich we have just concluded as to make it unnecessary to pursue it at\nany length.\n\nWe find, in fact, that men of Science who have no prepossessions\nwhatever against Evolution, and would willingly accept the Law of\nContinuity at all points, if only evidence were forthcoming, find here\nnot only an unsolved problem, but one even more difficult than the\nOrigin of Life itself. Du Bois-Reymond for example places this amongst\nhis \"transcendental\" enigmas, to which an answer will never be found,\nwhereas he thinks that the origin of vegetable life, although at present\na mystery, may one day be explained. The expression of his\nopinion,--that by no possibility can we ever understand how\nconsciousness could be evolved from matter--has, he tells us[107] been\nvehemently contradicted, but, he adds, nothing in the way of argument,\nor beyond mere assumptions, has been brought against him. Of these\nassumptions he notices only that of Professor Haeckel, \"the Prophet of\nJena,\" who protests against such limitations of our possibilities as\ntreason to the sacred cause of Evolution. The progress we have made in\nintellect, says Haeckel, beyond our barbarous progenitors, is sufficient\nto show that we are on the high road of development towards a stage as\nfar in advance of the present, as this is of the past; and when that is\nattained, our knowledge will be full and will embrace all this. But,\nasks Du Bois-Reymond in reply, is this mighty progress of ours so very\nevident within the period concerning which we have any information? Has\nthe mental capacity of our race notably improved since Homer?[108] or\nits faculty of thinking since Plato and Aristotle? At our present rate\nof progress, long before the high-water mark prophesied by Haeckel is\nreached, the earth will have become uninhabitable. And, were it\notherwise, the highest point of intellect to which conceivably man could\nattain, would be that of the \"sufficient intelligence\" whereof we have\nbeen told, which, from an inspection of the cosmic nebula could foretell\nall that was to issue from it. And, adds Du Bois-Reymond, even could we\ndo this, we should still be unable to understand the origin of\nconsciousness, which would require intelligence of another order than\nours, however magnified.\n\nSo again Mr. Wallace tells us,[109] after speaking of the beginning of\nlife as we have already heard,\n\n     The next stage is still more marvellous, still more completely\n     beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and\n     forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness,\n     constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and\n     vegetable kingdoms. Here all idea of mere complication of structure\n     producing the result is out of the question. We feel it to be\n     altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of\n     complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of\n     that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence, a\n     thing that _feels_, that is conscious of its own existence. Here we\n     have the certainty that something new has arisen, a being whose\n     nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and\n     definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals. No\n     verbal explanation or attempt at explanation--such as the statement\n     that life is the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm,\n     or that the whole existing organic universe from the amoeba up to\n     man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was\n     developed--can afford any mental satisfaction, or help us in any\n     way to a solution of the mystery.\n\nUnquestionably, there is no lack of speakers and writers who flatly\ncontradict such views, and assert that animal life, equally with\nvegetable, could be, and must have been, naturally evolved from\ninorganic nature. The above testimonies, however, amply suffice for our\npresent purpose, and with them we may be satisfied; for at least they\nmake it plain that Science has found no evidence as to the origin of\nsensation and consciousness conclusive enough to compel belief. And\nwhere there is no scientific evidence even alleged, such as might\nrequire the training of a specialist for its due appreciation, one man\nof ordinary intelligence is as competent a judge as another, and\nscientific experts are on a level with the rest of us.\n\n(_b_) _Rational thought and speech._ What has just been said applies\nwith equal force to this matter likewise. Unless Science have some\npositive evidence to bring, demonstrating how the gulf can be bridged\nwhich separates the intelligence of the most degraded races of men from\nthe highest of the brutes, and how articulate language can spontaneously\nhave arisen, which is the necessary appanage of reason, we have all\nequally the means of forming our conclusions on the subject.\n\nThat the gulf between man and the lower animals is here immense we have\nthe evidence of Mr. Darwin.\n\n     No doubt [he writes][110] the difference is in this respect\n     enormous, even if we compare the mind of one of the lowest savages,\n     who has no words to express any number higher than four, and who\n     uses no abstract terms for the commonest objects or affections,\n     with that of the most highly organized ape. The difference would,\n     no doubt, still remain immense, even if one of the highest apes had\n     been improved and civilized as much as a dog has been in comparison\n     with its parent form, the wolf or jackal. The Fuegians rank\n     amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was continually struck with\n     surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S. _Beagle_,\n     who had lived some years in England and could talk a little\n     English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our mental\n     faculties.\n\nMr. Darwin goes on to argue, however, that the difference between man\nand beast is one of degree only and not of kind; that this can be\n\"clearly shewn\"; and that there is unquestionably\n\n     a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest\n     fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than\n     between an ape and a man; yet this immense interval is filled up by\n     numberless gradations,\n\nfrom which he concludes that by a like series of steps, of which,\nhowever, no trace is left, our progenitors have been able to mount from\nthe simian to the human level.\n\nClear however as Mr. Darwin pronounces the evidence to be, it is very\nfar from being so considered by other eminent naturalists. So convinced\nan Evolutionist as Mr. Mivart, for example, declared on various\noccasions that his reason abundantly sufficed to convince him that there\nwas a wider break in nature between man and the highest ape, than\nbetween the highest ape and an oyster or even a mushroom.\n\nIt is evident that the evidence which permits judgments so diverse as\nthese cannot be said conclusively to prove the former existence of a\nbridge every vestige of which has, by the acknowledgment of all parties,\nentirely disappeared. We are therefore left to determine for ourselves,\nwhether the powers of our own mind, as each knows them in himself, are\nof a totally different nature from those of dogs and horses, and\nchimpanzees such as the late lamented \"Consul,\" or whether we are\nsuperior only in degree, as a sheep-dog is more intelligent than a\nsheep, or a fox than a goose.\n\nIf in any respect such an enquiry can be made definite and therefore\nprofitable, it is clearly in regard of Language. This, as said above, is\nan essential adjunct of reason such as ours, and on the other hand it\nforms the plainest boundary between the domain of the human race and\nthat of the brutes. It is, says Professor Max M\u00fcller, our Rubicon on the\nhither side of which men alone are found. Given reason such as ours,\nwhatever mode of communication might be open to them, we cannot suppose\nits possessors failing to establish a medium of intercourse. In existing\nconditions, man can make an alphabet out of the clicks of a needle or\nthe flashes of a mirror, and if his vocal organs were no better than\nthose of a baboon, we cannot imagine him content generation after\ngeneration with inarticulate howls and yells. But this is just the case\nof the animals. They are _never_ found to make the smallest progress in\nthe direction of a code of signals. Dogs indeed, as Mr. Darwin\nsays,[111] having developed in captivity the new art of barking, have\nfurther learnt to vary this accomplishment according to the\ncircumstances that provoke it, and have distinct tones to express the\ndiversity of their feelings, as when hunting, or angry, or setting out\nfor a walk, or shut up in a kennel or out of a house. Some dogs, he\nmight have added, refine still further, and will betray by their style\nof bark not only that they are hunting something, but what it is that\nthey have come upon, whether a rabbit, a cat, or a hedgehog. But, as the\nChevalier Bunsen observes,[112] and his observation includes such\nmanifestations as the above:\n\n     Animal sounds are the echoes of blind instincts within, or of the\n     phenomena of the outward world, uttered by suffering or satisfied\n     animal nature, and in all cases resulting from mere passiveness.\n\nBy rational language, on the other hand, is signified, to quote Mr.\nMivart:[113]\n\n     The external manifestation, whether by sound or gesture, of general\n     conceptions:--not emotional expressions or the manifestations of\n     sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judgments as to\n     \"the what,\" \"the how,\" and \"the why.\"\n\nConsequently, as Bunsen declares:\n\n     The theories about the origin of language have followed those\n     about the origin of thought, and have shared their fate. The\n     materialists have never been able to show the possibility of the\n     first step. They attempt to veil their inability by the easy but\n     fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to\n     explain the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions\n     of years could supply the want of the agent necessary for the first\n     movement, for the first step in the line of progress! No numbers\n     can effect a logical impossibility. How indeed could reason spring\n     out of a state which is destitute of reason? How can speech, the\n     expression of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of\n     years, out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of\n     pleasure, pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will\n     always shrink from such theories.\n\nBunsen's words were echoed even more forcibly by professor Max M\u00fcller,\nspeaking as President of the Anthropological Section of the British\nAssociation at Cardiff in 1889.\n\n     What [he asked] does Bunsen consider the real barrier between man\n     and beast? It is language, which is unattainable, or at least\n     unattained, by any animal except man.\n\n     You know [he continued] how for a time, and chiefly owing to\n     Darwin's predominating influence, every conceivable effort was made\n     to reduce the distance which language places between man and beast,\n     and to treat language as a vanishing line in the mental evolution\n     of animal and man. It required some courage at times to stand up\n     against the authority of Darwin, but at present all serious\n     thinkers agree, I believe, with Bunsen, that no animal has ever\n     developed what we mean by rational language, as distinct from mere\n     utterances of pleasure or pain, a subject lately treated with great\n     fulness by Professor Romanes. Still, if all true science is based\n     on facts, the fact remains that no animal has ever found what we\n     mean by a language; and we are fully justified, therefore, in\n     holding with Bunsen and Humboldt, as against Darwin and Romanes,\n     that there _is_ a specific difference between the human animal and\n     all other animals, and that that difference consists in language as\n     the outward manifestation of what the Greeks meant by _Logos_.\n\nIt is moreover evident that, far from speech having generated reason, as\nsome have preposterously maintained, it is reason which generates\nspeech, no less inevitably than sunlight produces the spectrum when it\npasses through a prism. The seeming paradox of Wilhelm von Humboldt is\nin fact a sober truth: \"Man is man only through speech, but in order to\ninvent it he must already be man.\" We have plain evidence that before\nmeans for the internal expression of it are found, the mental word\n(_verbum mentale_) is awaiting them, and that without this it would be\nas impossible for any sort of rational speech to be produced as for an\napple to be grown without an apple-tree.\n\nEvidence to this effect is furnished by recorded instances of persons\nwho from early childhood, or even from birth, were deaf, dumb, and\nblind, and appeared to be cut off from all possibility of human\nconverse, the \"gates of Mansoul\" being thus almost entirely closed. Such\nare the well-known cases of Laura Bridgman, Miss Keller, and Martha\nObrecht, who had been thus afflicted since their earliest childhood, the\ntwo first named from the age of two, and the last from that of three\nyears.[114] Also the more recent instance of Marie Heurtin, who was so\nborn, and consequently could not have even the faintest glimmer of any\nknowledge these senses could convey.[115] Yet, by the exercise of\ningenious and unwearied charity, a means of communication was elaborated\nthrough the sense of touch, and the souls which had seemingly been\nburied alive, shewed themselves responsive to such advances,--often\nastonishingly so,--and revealed their possession of faculties identical\nwith those of their rescuers. We are told, for example, of Marie Heurtin\nthat her intelligence proved to be quick, that she was even \"unusually\nclever, evidently eager for knowledge, and, as sometimes happens, her\nfaculties being prevented by her infirmity from wasting their powers on\nexternal objects, were all the more fresh and vigorous.\" Even more\nwonderful is the case of Miss Keller, who attained a degree of culture\nand accomplishment far beyond the common level of those possessing the\nuse of all their senses.\n\nSomewhat akin to such instances is that of the savages from Tierra del\nFuego mentioned above by Mr. Darwin. In their case likewise, when they\nwere brought into communication with people possessed of higher culture\nthan their own degraded race, it was found that the corresponding\nfaculties within them were not dead, or as yet non-existent, but only\nstarved into lethargy; and, the opportunity being given, they speedily\ncaused surprise by unmistakable proofs how closely they resemble\nourselves.\n\nThus we find that in this branch of our enquiry there is one broad fact,\nwhich all must recognize and none can deny. No race of men has ever been\nknown which could not speak, nor any race of animals which could, or\nwhich had made the first beginnings of intelligent language. Facts being\nthe only groundwork of Science here is undoubtedly something whereon she\nmay build an inference, and this inference will certainly not be that\nthe faculties of men and animals are radically identical. And if we are\ntold, as we constantly are, that it is more truly scientific to admit\nsuch identity, should there not be some other facts, still more\nsignificant and equally well established, to exhibit on the other side?\n\nBut of what character are the arguments actually adduced? It will be\nsufficient to quote a few which come with the highest authority.\n\nWe may start with the almost classical specimen contributed by Mr.\nDarwin himself.\n\n     It does not [he says][116] appear altogether incredible that some\n     unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the\n     growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys\n     the nature of the expected danger. And this would have been a first\n     step in the formation of a language.\n\nSimilarly Professor Whitney writes of some supposed \"pithecoid\"[117]\nmen:\n\n     There is no difficulty in supposing them to have possessed forms of\n     speech, more rudimentary and imperfect than ours.[118]\n\nAnd so again Professor Romanes:[119]\n\n     Let us try to imagine a community considerably more intelligent\n     than the existing anthropoid apes, although still considerably\n     below the intellectual level of existing savages. It is certain\n     that in such a community natural signs of voice, gesture, and\n     grimace would be in vogue to a greater or less extent. As their\n     numbers increased ... such signs would require to become more and\n     more conventional, or acquire more and more the character of\n     sentence-words.\n\nOf course, as Mr. Mivart replies,[120] there is no difficulty in\nsupposing anything we choose, or in seeing animals in imagination\nperforming feats which never yet have they been known to achieve in\nfact. But no amount of such suppositions or imaginations will furnish\nScience with the scantiest apology for a foothold, nor can the germs of\nlanguage attributed to pithecoid communities or the sagest of their\npatriarchs, be considered as of any greater value than the speeches put\ninto the mouths of the animals by \u00c6sop or \"Uncle Remus.\"\n\nIt is also to be noticed that in these accounts of the origin of\nlanguage, the essential element of reason is always quietly smuggled in\nas a matter of course. Thus Mr. Darwin's wisest of the pithecoids was\nable to \"think of\" a device for the information of his fellows. There is\nnot the smallest doubt that any creature which had got so far as _that_\nwould find what he wanted. It is but the old case of the man who was\nsure he could have written Hamlet had he had a mind to do so. Like him,\nthe ape might have made the invention, if he had a mind to make\nit;--only he had not got the mind. So too, Professor Romanes' missing\nlinks use tones and signs which acquire \"more and more\" the character of\ntrue speech: which could not be unless they contained some measure of\nthat character already. But it is just the first step thus ignored which\nspans the gulf between man and brute.\n\nThere is another factor upon which, in conjunction with these\nsuppositions, great stress is wont to be laid, namely that of time; it\nbeing apparently taken for granted that if only time enough be given\nanything whatever may come about. Thus Professor Romanes tells us[121]\nthat his imaginary _Homo alalus_, or speechless man, must probably have\nlived for an \"inconceivably long time,\" before getting far enough on the\nroad towards speech to give him such an advantage as enabled him to\ncrush out his less accomplished congeners; and that even after this\npoint was reached, another \"inconceivable lapse of time\" must have been\nrequired to turn him into _Homo sapiens_, or man as he actually is.\nImmense intervals, he further tells us, must have been consumed in the\npassage through various grades of mental evolution; \"The epoch during\nwhich sentence-words prevailed was probably immense\"; \"It was not until\n\u00e6ons of ages had elapsed that any pronouns arose.\"\n\nMeanwhile, there is no scrap of evidence that as a matter of fact any\nthing of all this ever happened at all, and as Bunsen has observed no\nmillions of years, even were millions available at discretion, could\never supply the want of the faculty without which nothing in the way of\nlanguage could ever be accomplished.\n\n(_c_) _Free-will._--Here is another human faculty which Du Bois-Reymond\ndeclares never to have been accounted for by natural causation, and he\ngreatly doubts whether it should not be classed among the problems that\nmust be for ever insoluble.\n\nProfessor Haeckel, as we have seen, gets rid of all difficulties on this\nscore by laying it down that \"the freedom of the will is not an object\nfor critical scientific inquiry at all, for it is a pure dogma, based\non an illusion, and has no real existence.\"\n\nIt is plain that for his purpose this is the only course possible. If\nthe will be really free, there can be no question of finding a\nmechanical explanation of it. There is therefore no alternative but to\ncut the Gordian knot, and to declare that the liberty which the vast\nmajority of men believe themselves to exercise every instant, is proved\nby Science to be no better than a pure dogma, that is to say, a mere\nfigment.\n\nWhen we seek for his indication of the line of argument whereby this\nposition is made good, the information supplied is less full than might\nbe desired. He begins[122] with a rather lengthy sketch of the history\nof controversy in this regard,--which contains the remarkable statement\nthat \"Some of the first teachers of the Christian Churches--such as St.\nAugustine and Calvin--rejected the freedom of the will as decidedly as\nthe famous leaders of pure Materialism, Holbach in the eighteenth, and\nB\u00fcchner in the nineteenth century.\" Then he proceeds:\n\n     The great struggle between the determinist and the indeterminist,\n     between the opponent and the sustainer of the freedom of the will,\n     has ended to-day after more than 2,000 years, completely in favour\n     of the determinist. The human will has no more freedom than that of\n     the higher animals, from which it differs only in degree, not in\n     kind. In the last [i.e. the eighteenth] century the doctrine of\n     liberty was fought with general philosophic and cosmological\n     arguments. The nineteenth century has given us very different\n     weapons for its definitive destruction--the powerful weapons which\n     we find in the arsenal of comparative physiology and evolution. We\n     now know that each act of the will is as fatally determined by the\n     organization of the individual, and as dependent on the momentary\n     condition of his environment, as every other psychic activity. The\n     character of the inclination was determined long ago by _heredity_\n     from parents and ancestors; the determination to each particular\n     act is an instance of _adaptation_ to the circumstances of the\n     moment wherein the strongest motive prevails, according to the laws\n     which govern the statics of emotion. Ontogeny teaches us to\n     understand the evolution of the will in the individual child.\n     Phylogeny reveals to us the historical development of the will\n     within the ranks of our vertebrate ancestors.[123]\n\nThat is all. It is needless to observe that jargon like this proves\nnothing. Of anything approaching to evidence there is here, manifestly,\nno vestige, and there is consequently nothing which can avail to win our\nassent as rational men.\n\nIt is likewise obvious that we have here a question as to which every\nhuman being has the means of judging equally with the most eminent man\nof Science, and modern improvement of the methods and instruments of\nresearch leaves us just where we always were. The final evidence on the\nsubject every man has within himself, in the most vital facts of his own\nexperience. Into the philosophy of the matter it is neither necessary\nnor advisable at present to go. In dealing with profound yet elementary\nquestions, regarding which our means of knowledge are thus simple and\ndirect, men are apt to bewilder themselves when they begin to\nphilosophize, and to persuade themselves that they cannot be sure\nprecisely of those things that are most certain. George Borrow is by no\nmeans the only one who has tormented himself with doubts as to his own\nexistence.[124] A still larger number have professed to believe\nthemselves mere machines compelled to go like clocks, and to do only\nwhat has been predetermined for them. But such beliefs are for the\nlecture-room or the study only, and in practical life every one behaves\nas if both he himself and others--especially others--were responsible\nfor their conduct. So common-sense teaches, than which we shall not find\na safer guide. \"Sir,\" said the eminently common-sense Dr. Johnson, \"we\n_know_ our will is free; and _there's_ an end on't. All theory is\nagainst the freedom of the will; all experience for it.... But, Sir, as\nto the doctrine of necessity, no man believes it. If a man should give\nme arguments that I cannot answer to prove that I cannot see; because I\ncannot answer his arguments, do I believe that I have no eyes?\"\n\nThus we find once again that the doctrines which some would force upon\nus in the name of Science, on whatever they are founded, have no basis\nof fact, and cannot therefore rightly call themselves scientific.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\nTHE ORDER OF NATURE\n\n\nThat the world which we inhabit is a _Cosmos_, ruled by law and order,\nno one has ever attempted to deny. Only because laws are everywhere\nfound awaiting discovery, is natural science a possibility. What such\nlaws really are, we have already considered. They are, as Mr. Lewes puts\nit, the paths along which the forces of nature travel to their results;\nand it is only because these forces keep invariably each to its proper\npath, that we are able to follow them with our minds, either to learn\nanything concerning them, or to turn our knowledge to practical account.\nIn something of the same manner, it is because we are assured that our\nrailway trains will run on their appointed lines, that we can learn from\nBradshaw how to get to Exeter or to Edinburgh;--but the forces of Nature\nare never derailed. It is, in fact, as we have heard, the first\nprinciple of Science, that \"the reign of law is universal, the principle\nof continuity ubiquitous,\"--and upon this the validity of all her\nmethods and conclusions wholly depends. It is taken for granted, with\nabsolute confidence, that what is once found to happen will be exactly\nrepeated in like circumstances,--that the laws experimentally observed,\nregarding motion, heat, light, sound, chemical combination, electricity,\nmagnetism, and the rest, will be faithfully obeyed, in every minutest\nparticular, as certainly as suns will rise and set, or moons wax and\nwane. Were it not so, were the forces of Nature to act spasmodically and\nat random, and did not their common action so result as to establish or\nsubserve other laws of bewildering complexity,--as in molecular\ndynamics, the mechanism of the heavens, and the processes of organic\nlife,--we could learn no more from the study of nature than from a page\nof type which had been set up by an idiot, or an anthropoid ape.\n\nHere is another factor in our problem, and one which has from the first\nattracted the attention of thinking men. No feature of nature impressed\nthem more than this same reign of law and order, apparent everywhere;\nand on this account they called the world _Cosmos_, instead of _Chaos_.\nAnd, since it is self-evident that everything must have a reason for its\nbeing, that whatever is not self-existent must have a cause other than\nitself, they felt compelled to enquire what manner of cause would\naccount for law and order. The like enquiry we have still to pursue, and\nby methods radically the same as ever; for amid all her discoveries\nScience has found nothing which does anything whatever to furnish an\nanswer. All that has been done is enormously to multiply the aspects\nunder which the problem presents itself.\n\nIt is now not merely in the larger and more obvious operations of Nature\nthat we can trace this marvellous ubiquity of law, but in her most\nhidden processes and inmost constitution. At every point, we are forced\nto ask why things should be as they actually are, and how they came to\nbe subject to conditions which they cannot be supposed to have created\nfor themselves. Why, for example, should the ultimate elements of\nmatter,--be they atoms, or electrons, or whatever else,--always and\neverywhere observe the same rules of the great game in which they serve\nas counters? Why, to take a concrete instance, should atoms of Hydrogen\nin Sirius, or in a star of the Milky Way, obey just the same laws as do\nthose with which we make coal-gas or spirit of salt? These various\natoms, as Lord Grimthorpe reminds us, have never been within billions of\nmiles of one another. What is the mysterious influence which links them\ntogether across the depths of space? That they are so linked is obvious;\nfor if we can ascertain the existence of such a substance in other\nspheres, it is only because the light it emits, exactly agrees when\nanalyzed in the spectroscope with that of hydrogen flames in our own\nlaboratories. How comes it, again, that the seventy different kinds of\natoms, (to speak in round numbers)--are distributed--according to\nMendel\u00e9eff's periodic law,--among some seven groups or families, the\nmembers of each group resembling one another in various particulars,\nwherein they differ from the rest? Or, to pass from atoms to molecules,\n(in which atoms of the same or of different kinds combine, to build up\nsimple or compound substances respectively,)--how is it that molecules\nof the same kind are always constructed upon exactly the same model,\nresembling one another far more closely than sovereigns struck from the\nsame die, or different copies of this morning's _Times_? It was in this\nuniformity of type, character and behaviour, repeated always and\neverywhere, in instances multiplied \"beyond the power of imagination to\nconceive,\" that Sir John Herschel[125] saw a feature stamping atoms and\nmolecules as \"manufactured articles, and subordinate agents,\" which, no\nless than a line of spinning-jennies, or a regiment of soldiers clad in\nthe same uniform, and going through the same evolutions, imply a\ncontrolling force directing things according to a definite system.\n\nThese and innumerable other particulars of detail has Science added to\nthe problem: but of anything which can supply an answer, she knows no\nmore than did the first man who ever mooted the question within his own\nsoul.\n\nAnd if in the inorganic world we find food for such considerations, with\nimmensely greater instance are they forced upon us by a study of the\norganic. Here we enter a new realm of mystery, for the laws we encounter\nactively energizing at every point, are altogether different from those\nwith which hitherto we have had to deal. The matter which enters into\nthe constitution of living things,--animals or plants--is precisely the\nsame as that of which the inorganic world is constituted. No single atom\nor molecule is found in the one which has not been drawn from the\nother;--nor when incorporated in a living structure do atoms or\nmolecules suffer any alteration, or change their nature in any respect,\nfor, says Clerk-Maxwell,[126] throughout all changes and catastrophes\nthese remain \"unbroken and unworn.\" Nevertheless, they fall at once\nunder the spell of a force which introduces into their operations an\norder altogether new, for it somehow strikes across all the laws of dead\nmatter, setting up a new code of its own, which endures just so long as\nlife lasts, and is never met with apart from life. And these organic\nlaws issue in marvellous results. Professor Haeckel himself, after\nendeavouring to show that from the inorganic world no arguments can be\ndrawn to favour the supposition of design in Nature, thus\ncontinues:[127]\n\n     But the idea of design has a very great significance and\n     application in the _organic_ world. We do undeniably perceive a\n     purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant\n     and animal seem to be controlled by a definite design in the\n     combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in\n     the machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life\n     continues, the functions of the several organs are directed to\n     definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a\n     machine.\n\nHow Haeckel proceeds to argue that such appearance of purposive design\nis merely fallacious, we need not here stay to enquire; our present\nconcern is to attempt to realize the evidence of law and order which the\nworld everywhere exhibits. As we have just heard, the parts of an\norganism, like those of a motor-car, or a chronometer, combine their\noperations for the production of definite ends; the attainment of which\ndepends in all instances upon the nicest correspondence of various\ndetails of their work. Thus, that there should be eyes capable of\nseeing, the laws of optics must be satisfied, reflection, refraction and\nthe rest, just as exactly in the making of an eye as in that of a\ntelescope. _De facto_ they _are_ satisfied. The eye, Mr. Darwin\nstyles[128] \"a living optical instrument as superior to one of glass as\nthe works of the Creator[129] are to those of man.\" He speaks, moreover,\nof \"all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different\ndistances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the\ncorrection of spherical and chromatic aberration.\"[130] Therefore,\nhowever we are to account for them, the laws which govern the\nproduction of eyes successfully solve a practical problem and satisfy\nlaws which were in force before an animal with eyes appeared on earth.\n\nIn just the same way, the requirements of sound are met by the\nstructure of the ear, which Sir Henry Holland, for example,[131] judged\nmore wonderful than that of the eye itself.\n\nSo again as to wings. They are in the first place such marvellous pieces\nof workmanship that as Mr. Pettigrew writes concerning one of their\nforms.[132] \"There are few things in nature more admirably constructed\nthan the wing of a bird, and perhaps none where design can be more\nreadily traced.\" But, moreover, wings entirely different in plan, as of\nbirds, bats, and all the varieties of insects, alike satisfy the laws of\naerostatics, and successfully solve in practice the problem of flight, a\nproblem which we are unable to solve even theoretically. \"It is\nevident,\" writes Lord Grimthorpe,[133] \"that nobody yet thoroughly\nunderstands the whole theory of flying, though we are seeing it\ncontinually, and have unlimited opportunities of examining all sorts of\nwings. The explanation that appears plausible for one kind, not only\nwill not do for another but seems refuted by it.\" Yet in a multitude of\ndifferent ways, the forces of Nature succeed in effecting what with all\nour Science we cannot shew to be possible.\n\nAnd concerning not merely one portion of a creature's structure, but the\nwhole, Professor Huxley declares:[134]\n\n     The horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the\n     fact that it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect\n     pieces of machinery in the living world. In truth, among the works\n     of human ingenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive\n     so perfectly adapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so\n     small a quantity of fuel, as this machine of Nature's\n     manufacture--the horse.\n\nThese are but a few out of countless similar examples. \"We are\nconstantly discovering,\" says Lord Grimthorpe, \"new complications and\nprocesses, and what to all common sense appear contrivances, in the\norgans of all living things, and indeed we can find no limit to them.\"\nIn all these cases an instrument is fashioned precisely adapted to the\nperformance of a certain function, and it is therefore obvious on first\nprinciples that there must exist _some_ power capable of producing such\ninstruments.\n\nIt will probably be answered that there are forces enough in Nature to\naccount for everything, and that these furnish the needful explanation.\nBut, as Mr. Croll rightly insists,[135] Force by itself explains\nnothing. Its mere exercise has no tendency whatever to produce such\neffects. There must likewise be Determination of Force in the one\ndefinite direction required, and it is in the source of this\nDetermination that the true cause must be sought to which the result is\ndue. It is not simply because iron is hammered and filed that a\nrailway-engine is produced; nor is it sufficient that a block of marble\nbe chipped with mallet and chisel in order to obtain a statue of Apollo.\nUnless some influence comes in to direct the forces in such cases to\ntheir respective results, the results will never by any possibility be\nsecured. And in the processes of Nature such direction or determination\nmust be exercised in particulars inconceivably intricate, to which the\nworks of man furnish no parallel. As Mr. Croll writes:\n\n     If a tree is to be formed, the lines of least resistance must all\n     be determined and adjusted in relation to the objective idea of the\n     tree; of the root; of the branches; of the leaves; of the bud; of\n     the fruit; and of every part of the tree. But this is not all: the\n     tree is built up molecule by molecule, each of which requires a\n     special determination, and, beyond all this, we have the\n     structureless protoplasm, which must be differentiated according to\n     the objective idea of the whole. What produces this marvellous\n     adjustment of means to ends?\n\nAnd as he insists in another passage:\n\n     The determinations which take place in nature occur not at random,\n     but according to a plan--an objective idea. Thus the question is\n     not simply what causes a body to take some direction, but what\n     causes it to take, among the infinite number of possible\n     directions, the proper direction in relation to the idea. In the\n     formation of, say, the leaf of a tree, no two molecules move in\n     identically the same direction or take identically the same path.\n     But each molecule must move in relation to the objective idea of\n     the leaf, or no leaf would be formed. The grand question,\n     therefore, is, What is it that selects from among the infinite\n     number of possible directions the proper one in relation to this\n     idea?\n\nAnd this sort of thing is going on in every blossom and leaf and blade\nof grass, in every hair and every feather over the surface of the earth.\n\nTruly does our author find here \"The Grand Question,\" for in it we touch\nthe very heart of our whole problem, and are forced to consider more\nclosely than we have hitherto done of what character must be the\nultimate Cause which alone can explain the world.\n\nIt is, as we have seen, a first principle of Science, that in enquiries\nsuch as this, we must proceed from experience to inference, from the\nknown to the unknown. Arguing thus, we may legitimately gather from\nobserved phenomena, that something exists, which even though it be not\ndirectly within the range of our senses, must certainly be capable of\nproducing such phenomena: just as the perturbations of one planet have\nrevealed the existence of another; and the lines in their spectra have\ntaught us the chemical constitution of the sun and stars.\n\nThis principle being borrowed by Science from common-sense, has\ninstinctively been ever adopted by those who set themselves to enquire\nof what kind must be that unseen Power at the back of Nature to which\nthe fact of law and order may be ascribed. And as there is but one\nforce or power within the range of our experience capable of producing\nsuch an effect, it is but natural that this should have been constantly\nassumed to represent, at least by analogy, the nature of the power\nrequired. That there is but one cause known to us experimentally, which\ncan determine the operation of force towards the attainment of a\npreconditioned result, none will deny--namely the purposive action of an\nintelligent will, as known to us in ourselves and in our\nfellow-men;--and to Will accordingly, immensely more intelligent than\nours, has been ascribed the establishment of those laws which the\nhighest intellects of our race are able partially and dimly to\napprehend.\n\nIt is thus that we are led to the fundamental doctrine of Theism, to\nbelief in an intelligent First Cause, according to whose design the\nuniverse has been fashioned; a cause which must have all that is found\nin the universe or any part of it, including man, and more--for it has\nof itself what all else derives from it--whose purposes necessarily\ntranscend our mental grasp--but whose modes of thought are reflected in\nour own, by which they can in some measure be followed through a study\nof their results.\n\nIf such a belief, so grounded, be unscientific, as is constantly\nassumed, there must be good arguments to the contrary. It should be\ndemonstrable, either that Science has shown such a line of reasoning to\nbe unsound, or that she has discovered within her own domain something\nwhich, at least conceivably, can do the work thus attributed to\nIntelligence--in which case the much-quoted dictum of Lord Kelvin will\nbe in point,--that if a probable solution of any problem can be found\nwhich is consistent with the ordinary course of Nature, we must not go\nbeyond Nature in search of one.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the above line of reasoning cannot be\ninvalidated, and if scientific methods can discover nothing competent to\neffect what has undoubtedly been effected, it is not easy to see how it\ncan be unscientific to proceed by inference to what is confessedly\nbeyond the scope of observation and experiment.\n\nThat \"Teleology,\" or the doctrine of Final Causality,[136] is unworthy\nof serious consideration, is without doubt a common assumption, and some\nwriters seem to think that an argument is sufficiently discredited if it\nbe styled \"teleological.\" Yet this rather formidable term represents no\nmore than the belief that the infinite adaptations of means to results\nobserved in Nature are the effect of purpose, not of chance. And if we\neliminate purpose, what is there left to furnish an explanation, beyond\nthe indubitable fact that such adaptations have always been found in\norganic nature, and that we have learnt confidently to anticipate that\nthey will appear generation after generation according to the \"law of\nheredity\"? But this obviously only tells us that they have been produced\nand are likewise transmitted, and throws no light whatever on the cause\nof the marvellous processes to which their production and their\ntransmission are due. If we have any rational grounds for expecting that\nsuch processes will continue to occur, it cannot be merely that they\nhave occurred before, but we instinctively infer that the cause to which\nthey are ultimately due continues to operate. We are thus as far as ever\nfrom an answer to the question, What is that cause?\n\n     It may be urged [says Newman][137] if a thing happens once it must\n     happen always; for what is to hinder it? Nay, on the contrary, why,\n     because one particle of matter has a certain property, should all\n     particles have the same? Why, because particles have instanced the\n     property a thousand times, should the thousand and first instance\n     it also? It is _prima facie_ unaccountable that an accident should\n     happen twice, not to speak of it happening always. If we expect a\n     thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an\n     accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may\n     bring it about twice. _What_ is to hinder its happening? rather\n     what is to make it happen? Here we are thrown back from the\n     question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a\n     fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then we have no\n     experience of any cause but Will.\n\nHere is the crucial point: \"We have no experience of any cause but\nWill;\" and it follows that if, as Science bids us, we base inference on\nexperience alone, there can be no doubt about the conclusion to which we\nshall be led.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo different is the verdict of Sir John Herschel:\n\n     The presence of _Mind_ [he writes][138] is what solves the whole\n     difficulty: so far, at least, as it brings it within the sphere of\n     our consciousness, and into conformity with our own experience of\n     what action is.\n\nThat the introduction of intelligent purpose, as a factor, sufficiently\nmeets the requirements of our reason cannot be denied. As Bishop Butler\ninsists, it is even impossible for any man in his senses to say that the\nproblem can be more easily solved without it. And witnesses not merely\nunfriendly, but positively and even bitterly hostile, are compelled to\nadmit that on whatever other grounds they may reject Theism, it is not\nbecause this doctrine is inadequate as an explanation of the world we\nknow.\n\n     It seems to me [says Professor Huxley][139] that \"creation,\" in the\n     ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no\n     difficulty in imagining that, at some former period, this universe\n     was not in existence; and that it made its appearance ... in\n     consequence of the volition of some pre-existent Being. The\n     so-called _\u00e0 priori_ arguments against Theism, and given a Deity,\n     against the possibility of creative acts, appear to me to be devoid\n     of reasonable foundation.\n\nSimilarly, that uncompromising foe of religious belief in any shape,\nProfessor W. K. Clifford, replying to Dr. Martineau who based his\nargument on the existence of the moral law, as well as the evidence of\ndesign in Nature, wrote thus:[140]\n\n     I fully admit that the theistic hypothesis, so grounded, and\n     considered apart from objections elsewhere arising, is a reasonable\n     hypothesis and an explanation of the facts. The idea of an external\n     conscious being is unavoidably suggested, as it seems to me, by the\n     categorical imperative of the moral sense; and moreover in a way\n     quite independent, by the aspect of nature, which seems to answer\n     to our questionings with an intelligence akin to our own.\n\nOn the other hand, where is an alternative hypothesis to be found of\nwhich as much can be said,--which will justify itself to reason, by\naccounting for the facts? That no purely materialistic or mechanical\ntheory will suffice is not only obvious to common-sense, but is\nacknowledged by those who would gladly find such a theory sufficient.\n\n     It would be a great delusion [writes Weismann][141] if any one\n     were to believe that he had arrived at a comprehension of the\n     universe by tracing the phenomena of Nature to mechanical\n     principles. He would thereby forget that the assumption of eternal\n     matter with its eternal laws by no means satisfies our intellectual\n     need for causality.\n\nSimilarly, Professor Huxley admits that even his primeval cosmic nebula\nwith the world potential in its womb, leaves something to desire.\n\n     The more purely a mechanist the speculator is [he writes][142] the\n     more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of\n     which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences, and\n     the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist,\n     who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular\n     arrangement was not[143] intended to evolve the phenomena of the\n     universe.\n\nAccordingly, although he was clearly persuaded that Theism is a doctrine\nwhich we can never have sufficient grounds for accepting, Professor\nHuxley repudiated the notion that scientific discovery has done anything\nto disprove it. Thus he tells us,[144] that, in order to be a\nteleologist, and yet accept Evolution, it is only necessary\n\n     to suppose that the original plan was sketched out ... that the\n     purpose was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out of which\n     the animals have come.\n\nAnd again,[145] he thus expressed himself regarding two objections\ncommonly brought against Darwinism, namely that it introduces \"chance\"\nas a factor in nature, and that it is atheistic:\n\n     Both assertions are utter bosh. None but parsons believe in\n     \"chance\"; and the philosophical difficulties of Theism now are\n     neither greater nor less than they have been ever since Theism was\n     invented.\n\nAccordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we\nare precisely where men have always been,--dependent upon arguments such\nas satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard\nthe starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence\nmust appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.[146]\n\nThat scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning,\nwe have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose\nconclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found\nstanding in the very front rank of Science.\n\nLike the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a\nBeing endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from\na study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a\npart of Natural Philosophy.[147]\n\n     We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and\n     Tait][148] the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and\n     Upholder of all things.\n\n     When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G.\n     Stokes,][149] it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to\n     be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But\n     design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study\n     then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a\n     Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things\n     that we behold.\n\nLord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.[150]\n\n     I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither\n     affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms\n     creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an\n     article of belief.\n\nThirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture\nbefore the British Association[151] thus spoke concerning Molecules:\n\n     They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and\n     measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed\n     on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in\n     measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we\n     reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they\n     are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning\n     created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of\n     which heaven and earth consist.\n\nIt is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science\nwho altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false,\nor at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That,\nhowever, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced\nas if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be\ndetermined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is\nabundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which\ninfluences the great majority of those who style themselves\nrationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be\nestablished they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as\nthey are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can\npretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely\nexploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such\nstatements, that our witnesses have been called--and for this purpose\ntheir testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his\nPresidential address told the British Association:[152]\n\n     It is true that among scientific men, as in other classes, crude\n     views are to be met with as to the deeper things of Nature; but\n     that the life-long beliefs of Newton, of Faraday, and of Maxwell,\n     are inconsistent with the scientific habit of mind, is surely a\n     proposition which I need not pause to refute.\n\nAnd when from authority we turn to the line of argument adopted by those\nwho would impugn that upon which Theists rely, and who reject the idea\nof an intelligent First Cause either as superfluous, or as incapable of\nverification, we find but two courses one or other of which they feel\nthemselves compelled to adopt, although it is not very easy to\nunderstand the state of mind which can rest satisfied with either.\n\nSome, on the one hand, frankly admit that Science has not by her own\nproper methods discovered any ultimate principle of things, and never\nwill. But on that very account, they maintain, this ultimate principle,\nwhatever it may be, must remain utterly unknown to us--for we can never\n_know_ anything except by the methods of Science. Accordingly, although\nthe theistic hypothesis would confessedly furnish such an explanation as\nis lacking, we must not adopt it because we cannot test it\nexperimentally.\n\nAnd yet in ordinary life we have no difficulty in arguing from effect to\ncause in just the same manner, and satisfying ourselves of the existence\nof what we can as little touch or see as the First Cause itself. Thus we\nare convinced of the genius of Shakespeare and Napoleon, and that there\nwas a difference between the character of Robespierre and that of Howard\nthe Philanthropist. But no man ever saw or touched either genius or\ncharacter, which can be known only by their results. It is by inference\nfar less legitimate that those proceed who, like Haeckel, seek in the\nforces of Nature themselves an explanation of phenomena which, as we\nknow them, they are wholly incapable of producing. Instead of arguing\nthat a cause must therefore exist which is beyond Nature, but whose\ncharacter our own experience enables us in some measure, and\nanalogically, to learn, these philosophers start with the assumption\nthat no such cause is possible, and then proceed to draw the consequence\nthat the condition of Nature must once have been totally different from\nwhat it actually is, enabling her forces to produce results which no\nexperience of any sort indicates as possible.\n\nThose who adopt such an attitude of nescience, and in the proper sense\nof the word are termed Agnostics, find themselves compelled accordingly\nto leave their system in the air, with no basis more solid than the\nelephant and tortoise on which Hindoo astronomers rested the world. They\nmust ignore the fundamental principle of Causation, from which we\nstarted our present enquiry, and in consequence it is impossible that\ntheir systems should, as Professor Weismann says, satisfy our\nintellectual needs.\n\nOthers, on the other hand, declare that the Theistic hypothesis must be\ndismissed, because a better has been found, Science having discovered\nwithin her own sphere an effectual substitute for the supposed First\nCause. When we enquire what this may be, we are told that it is the \"Law\nof Substance,\" or \"Evolution,\" or \"Nature\" herself, or an \"Infinite\nEternal Energy unknown and unknowable,\" but devoid of intellect and\nwill--or \"Monism,\" or some other similar abstraction which can represent\nno idea at all, unless--as often happens--it be clad in the robes of its\nrival, and credited with the very powers and attributes denied to the\nFirst Cause, so as to become practically the same thing under another\nand misleading name. Regarding this point there will be more to be said\npresently. Here, it will be sufficient to note that this is in truth the\nonly meaning which can be attached to much of the language of so-called\nscientific writers.\n\n     Who [asks Mr. Wollaston][153] is this Nature ... who has such\n     tremendous power, and to whose efficiency such marvellous\n     performances are ascribed? What are her image and attributes when\n     dragged from her wordy lurking-place? Is she aught but a pestilent\n     abstraction, like dust cast in our eyes to obscure the workings of\n     an intelligent First Cause?\n\nSo at the end of his life Clerk-Maxwell characteristically observed,\nthat he had studied many queer religions and philosophies, but had\nfound none of them that would work without God concealed somewhere.\n\nFinally, a warning uttered by Lord Rayleigh in the address quoted above\nmust not be forgotten. After acknowledging that \"unfortunately\" there\nare writers speaking in her name who have set themselves to foster the\nprevailing belief that Science necessarily tends towards materialism, he\nthus continued:\n\n     It would be easy, however, to lay too much stress upon the opinions\n     of even such distinguished workers as these. Men who devote their\n     lives to investigation cultivate a love of truth for its own sake,\n     and endeavour instinctively to clear up, and not, as is too often\n     the object in business and politics, to obscure, a difficult\n     question. So far the opinion of a scientific worker may have a\n     special value; but I do not think that he has a claim superior to\n     that of other educated men, to assume the attitude of a prophet. In\n     his heart he knows that underneath the theories that he constructs\n     there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile. The higher\n     mysteries of being, if penetrable at all by the human intellect,\n     require other weapons than those of calculation and experiment.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\nPURPOSE AND CHANCE\n\n\nAn objection is no doubt awaiting us which many consider absolutely\nfatal to the argument for purpose or design in nature, as above\npresented. That argument, it will be said, rests entirely upon the\nassumption that the sole alternative to Purpose is _Chance_, an\nassumption which, if not dishonest, betrays ignorance scarcely less\ndiscreditable: for men of science constantly warn us that there is no\nsuch thing as Chance,--that every occurrence in nature, one as much as\nanother, testifies to the uniformity and regularity of natural\ncausation,--and that if we speak of any phenomenon being due to Chance,\nthis term is but a conventional symbol signifying that we do not know\nwhat caused it.\n\nAmongst those who take up this position, which is well-nigh universal,\nno better representative need be sought than Professor Huxley, who\ntreated the point formally, and was manifestly well satisfied with his\nperformance. We have already heard him declare belief in Chance to be an\nabsurdity of which none but parsons could be guilty, a class in which he\nclearly conceived the low-water-mark of intelligence to be reached. On\nanother occasion,[154] he set himself expressly to the exposure of what\nhe described as, \"The most singular of the, perhaps immortal, fallacies,\nwhich live on, Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted\nthem.\"\n\n     Probably the best answer [he writes] to those who talk of Darwinism\n     meaning the reign of \"Chance,\" is to ask them what they themselves\n     understand by \"Chance.\" Do they believe that anything in this\n     universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really\n     conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been\n     predicted by any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of\n     Nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique\n     superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been\n     illumined by a ray of scientific thought.\n\nAs an object lesson for his enlightenment, the Professor bids one of\nthese benighted folk betake himself to the sea-shore on which a heavy\nstorm is breaking; and having painted a rather elaborate word-picture of\nthe scene, he thus continues:\n\n     Surely here, if anywhere, he [the unenlightened one] will say that\n     chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the\n     very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that\n     here as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not\n     a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a\n     rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary\n     consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a\n     sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent\n     physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict,\n     every one of these \"chance\" events.\n\nThis, however, is mere beating of the air, having no bearing whatever\nupon the question at issue; and we can only wonder that so able a man as\nHuxley could thus absolutely miss the whole point, while remaining\nserenely unconscious that he did so. No sane man ever entertained the\nfoolish notion with which he credits his man of straw. On the contrary,\nit is precisely those whom he so heartily despises, that _dis_believe in\nChance, and deny it any share in the making of the world. They neither\nregard Chance as a possible cause of phenomena, nor make of it a kind of\ndeity or fetish, as some appear inclined to do with Science. Their\ncontention is that according to those who, with Huxley, reject the idea\nof intelligent purpose, Chance would needs be introduced as a ruling\nelement in nature, which would be absurd. Nor in thus arguing do they\nintroduce any notion so irrational as that of \"absolute\" Chance, of\nevents happening without causes. But unquestionably there can be\n\"relative\" Chance. A cause fully sufficient for the production of a\nresult, may have no tendency whatever to determine or direct this result\nto a particular end; and if in such circumstances this end be attained\nit is by Chance. In particular, should many independent results of\npurely mechanical forces combine to produce a result, as intelligence\nwould combine them, its production can only be ascribed to Chance.\n\"Chance\" has therefore a very real meaning. It is not a Cause, but the\nabsence of Cause: not of Cause altogether, but of the _determining_\nCause requisite for the production of certain results. The argument\nbased upon the impotence of Chance to obtain such results, is precisely\nthat which the most exact of all the Sciences, Mathematics, accepts and\napplies in the Theory of Chances.\n\nThe answer to the question which Professor Huxley evidently deems\nunanswerable is plain enough. By \"Chance\" is meant the concurrence,\nunguided by Purpose, of independent forces to produce a definite effect.\n\"Chance\" denotes the absence of Purpose, as \"Vacuum\" denotes the absence\nof air; and when it is denied that certain results can come about by\nchance, or fortuitously, it is as when we deny that life can be\nsustained _in vacuo_. It is no positive feature or action of the vacuum\nthat we have in mind, for its essence is negative; but just because of\nthat negative character, experience has taught us, that it cannot fulfil\ncertain functions. In the same manner the potency of \"Chance\" is denied,\nsimply because it is not Purpose.\n\nThat there are phenomena for which \"Chance\" thus defined cannot account\nis, surely, obvious. If a man sits down at a piano and plays \"God Save\nthe King,\" no evidence in the world would persuade Professor Huxley or\nany one else, that the performer had never before seen a musical\ninstrument, nor knew of the existence of such an air or any other, but\njust put his fingers on the keys as the spirit moved him. Such a story\nwould be rightly felt to be absolutely incredible: and yet the notes he\nproduced--equally with those of the howling chorus of winds and\nwaves--were the necessary effects of physical causes; given that\nparticular strings were struck, they could not but follow. The whole\npoint is, however, that in this case the result is _not_ a howling\nchorus, but a melody; not mere formless noise, but an orderly\ncomposition, constructed on definite principles which our mind can\nrecognize. It is in regard of this particular feature of the result that\nForce of itself, as we have seen, explains nothing, and that, if there\nis to be any explanation at all, we must know something as to how Force\nreceived the needful Direction or Determination.\n\nIt is only in regard of human action that we can, as in the above\ninstance, find an example of what may be called pure fortuity, for such\naction alone can be traced up to an initial cause, namely the exercise\nof Will. No one can have a right to call the action of natural forces\nfortuitous; on the contrary, we have seen arguments that in the\ninorganic world itself purpose must be recognized. But an action\ndirected by purpose to one result may be quite fortuitous in regard of\nanother. A man who digging a foundation for a house finds a buried\ntreasure, discovers this by chance. Although his action was ruled by a\nmost definite purpose, that purpose was not this. So again when,\naccording to the old story, certain Phoenician mariners finding no\nstones on the sea-shore suitable for the purpose, used blocks of natron\nto support their cooking-pots, and so produced glass, they were led to\nthe discovery by mere chance. And in like manner, however definitely the\nforces of matter may be determined each to its own proper end, there are\nresults which if produced by them must be as purely fortuitous as such\nan invention made by men who thought only of preparing their dinner. The\ncable which was being laid to America having, in 1865, snapped and sunk\nin mid-Atlantic, it was determined in the following year to attempt its\nrecovery. Meanwhile the shore-end at Valencia was still connected with\nthe dial-plate, on which messages had been scored between ship and shore\nwhile the cable was intact. A telegraphist was constantly on duty,\nwatching the needle which was never still, being deflected hither and\nthither by the earth-currents, working through the wires. On a sudden,\nhowever, the needle spelled out the letters \"Got it,\" and it was known\nwith absolute certainty that there was a man at the other end. It is no\ndoubt perfectly true that each previous movement had been the necessary\nconsequence of the force applied, just as truly as those which coincided\nwith the conventions of the telegraphist's alphabet; but win any one say\nthat such coincidence could conceivably be attributable to the forces of\nmagnetism alone, however exact to the laws according to which they\noperate?\n\nIt must always be remembered that the question we have to discuss is,\nhow far Science casts any light upon such questions as the one before\nus. And since \"Science\" is taken to mean knowledge acquired through the\nobservation of phenomena alone, we have at present to enquire whether\nmaterial forces, the only ones of which observation directly tells us\nanything, could have produced such effects as we have considered,\notherwise than by mere \"Chance\"? If they could not, is it imaginable\nthat they produced these effects at all? And it appears obvious that\nunless there be Purpose at the back of Nature, Chance must be\nacknowledged as the architect of the universe.\n\nProfessor Huxley tells us, it is true, that such an idea could be\nentertained by no one whose mind had ever been illumined by a ray of\nscientific thought. In face of this it is rather remarkable to find that\nthe idea was undoubtedly entertained by Mr. Darwin, who took for granted\nthat to deny Purpose is to affirm Chance.\n\n     I am conscious [he wrote to Asa Gray][155] that I am in an utterly\n     hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is\n     the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing\n     as the result of Design.\n\nAnd again:[156]\n\n     I cannot any how be contented to view this wonderful universe, and\n     especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is\n     the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as\n     resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or\n     bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this\n     notion _at all_ satisfies me.\n\nProfessor Haeckel too is by no means in accord on this point with his\nfriend Professor Huxley. He writes:[157]\n\n     One group of philosophers affirms, in accordance with the\n     teleological conception, that the whole cosmos is an orderly\n     system, in which every phenomenon has its aim and purpose; there is\n     no such thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical\n     theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a\n     monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose\n     whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special\n     result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the\n     heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find\n     any trace of a controlling purpose--all is the result of chance.\n     Each party is right--according to its definition of chance. The\n     general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of\n     substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;\n     in this sense there is no such thing as chance. Yet it is not only\n     lawful, but necessary to retain the term for the purpose of\n     expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are\n     not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own\n     mechanical cause independent of the other. Everybody knows that\n     chance, in this monistic sense, plays an important part in the life\n     of man and in the universe at large. That, however, does not\n     prevent us from recognizing in each \"chance\" event, as we do in the\n     evolution of the entire cosmos, the universal sovereignty of\n     nature's supreme law, _the law of substance_.\n\nThere is a good deal here which is less clear in the way of argument\nthan could be wished. The famous _Law of Substance_, as we have seen,\nhas two articles: The indestructibility of matter, and the conservation\nof energy. What light either of these principles may be supposed to shed\non such questions as the adaptation of organs to their functions is by\nno means obvious. To say that there is no design in the organic world,\nbecause it is a special result of biological agencies,--is quite of a\npiece with the contention which has actually been made, that we can no\nlonger argue to Design, with Paley, from the analogy of a watch, since\n\"nearly every part of a watch is now made by inanimate machinery.\"[158]\nThus much, however, is perfectly clear: the competence of Chance is\nrecognized to originate a world like ours, and to enable Nature, as\nProfessor Clifford says, seemingly to answer our questionings with an\nintelligence akin to our own.\n\nIt would thus appear that when Newton asks,--Was the eye fashioned\nwithout knowledge of the laws of light, or the ear, without knowledge of\nthose of sound?--we are to answer in the affirmative, and to say that\nsuch organs are but special results of biological agencies, under the\ngeneral management of the Law of Substance.\n\nThat such a reply cannot with any truth be termed scientific is\nplain--for it touches matters which by her own acknowledgment Science\ncannot reach;--nor does it seem probable that this kind of talk would\nconvince anybody, were there nothing more. Undoubtedly those who\npersuade themselves that the Order of the Universe can be sufficiently\nexplained without introducing the idea of purpose or design, are\ninfluenced by other considerations than these.\n\n(1) With some it is the argument, which appears chiefly to have weighed\nwith Mr. Darwin, who constantly speaks of it as the great obstacle to\nthat belief in Design which the marvels of the universe would otherwise\nnecessitate. This he based on certain features in Nature which appeared\nto him incompatible with the work of a beneficent Author, mainly the\nexistence of suffering amongst animals in whose case it cannot be\nsupposed to subserve any purpose of moral benefit. As he wrote to Asa\nGray:[159]\n\n     I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should\n     wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.\n     There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade\n     myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly\n     created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their\n     feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat\n     should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in\n     the belief that the eye was expressly designed.\n\nSuch a mode of meeting the arguments for Design, though only indirect,\nundoubtedly deserves serious consideration, touching as it does the\ndarkest of all mysteries--the Origin of Evil. It is clear, however, that\nin Mr. Darwin's case, and probably in that of many others, its effect\nwas due in no slight degree to imagination rather than to reason. He\npicks out one or two instances of seeming cruelty in Nature, as though\nthey were something exceptional, and appears to imply that they create\nan obstacle to a belief which Nature as a whole almost forces upon him.\nIn reality, the same sort of thing goes on everywhere. Animal life from\nbeginning to end is a record of rapine and slaughter, as Tennyson\ndeclared in a verse too trite to bear quotation. The most petted of pet\ndogs has no more compunction than a tiger in worrying creatures weaker\nthan itself, and a robin-redbreast takes far more lives daily than does\na sparrow-hawk. But to draw from these facts such large conclusions--is\nquite another matter. Can we imagine that we are qualified by the\nfulness of our knowledge to pronounce judgment and declare that there\ncan be no good end where we fail to perceive one? As Mr. Darwin admits\nin the very same passage: \"I feel most deeply that the whole subject is\ntoo profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on\nthe mind of Newton.\"\n\nHow much is there in the actions of persons much lowlier than Newton\nwhich to the most intelligent of animals, dogs, elephants, or monkeys,\ncould they speculate at all, must seem wholly devoid of sense;--as for\ninstance that men should spend such continual labour in digging and\nploughing. So again, in his famous lecture on Coal, Professor Huxley\ndepicts what might have been the reflections of a giant reptile of the\nCarboniferous Epoch, suggested by the seemingly senseless waste of\nnature's powers in the production of the primeval forests, that have\nfurnished the coal measures, to which so much of our progress and\ncivilization is directly due.\n\nAnd, after all, given the universal law of death for all living things,\nit would hardly appear that we can assure ourselves that any attendant\ncircumstance constitutes a greater evil--as Mr. Darwin's argument seems\nto assume; and yet, it does not appear ever to have been argued that\nthere can be no purpose in Nature since no organic life endures for\never. Most probably, if we knew enough, we should plainly see that\nnothing could be more cruel than to have omitted the carnivora from\ncreation, leaving herbivorous animals to multiply till they starved one\nanother to death, or at least to perish of senile decay far more\npainfully than under the fangs of tigers and wolves. Instances might\nmoreover be quoted which serve to remind us how impossible it is rightly\nto estimate the true character of suffering amongst creatures altogether\ndifferent from ourselves. Thus when, as eye-witnesses report, young\nscorpions clinging to their mother devour her alive, scientifically\navoiding as long as possible all vital parts and mortal wounds--we are\ninclined to consider them monsters of wickedness, and their parent as a\nmodel of motherly devotion, whose sufferings cannot be less horrible\nthan those of a caterpillar similarly eaten by the ichneumon grub. But\nwe cannot with any reason impute more moral blame to the young\nscorpions, than to the lambkins which draw sustenance from their dams in\nanother fashion which we find touching and poetical; while as for the\nmother--who doubtless treated her own parent in just the same\nfashion--she exhibits no symptom to show that she resents her\noffsprings' advances, any more than does the ewe, but on the contrary\nhas her sting ever ready for any one who would interfere with them.\n\n(2) It is a still more common objection to the doctrine of purpose\neverywhere in Nature, that such an idea is negatived by the continuity\nand uniformity of natural laws, precluding the notion of constant\ninterference by another, supernatural, Agent. But this objection is\nbased upon an entire misconception. No one imagines such intervention,\nor that purpose guides nature as a pilot guides a ship by repeated\norders to the man at the wheel. Undoubtedly the reign of law in nature\nis uninterrupted, but in that law purpose is interwoven as the\ncontrolling element; just as the mind of Homer governs the hand of every\nprinter who sets up type for a new edition of the _Iliad_.\n\n(3) Finally, there is the argument, already alluded to, that inasmuch as\nthe most complex structures are daily transmitted under our eyes by\ngeneration, we have evidence that nature can produce them from her own\nresources, and by the operation of a merely natural law, such as no one\ndoubts generation to be.\n\nSuch an argument, it is evident, merely begs the question at issue,\noffering as it does no explanation, or suggestion, as to how a power so\nmarvellous was acquired. It would be equally philosophical to argue that\nthere is nothing wonderful about the genius of a great poet because we\nconfidently anticipate that it will be exhibited in the next piece he\nproduces.\n\nIt is likewise clear that, here again, imagination rather than reason\nfurnishes the argument. In the first place, were there nothing else, no\nexplanation whatever would thus be afforded as to how the structures in\nquestion were first produced, before they could be transmitted. And,\nsecondly, which is still more important, generation--far from furnishing\nan explanation of anything--introduces us to mysteries yet more\ninscrutable than any we have yet encountered, and to problems which\nseem to admit of no possible solution apart from, not only Purpose, but\ntranscendent Power.\n\nDoubtless the propagation of life is ruled by natural law, but how such\nlaw effects its object we understand immeasurably less than we\nunderstand the flight of birds or butterflies. As a recent writer\nreminds us,[160] what is transmitted from parents to offspring \"is not a\nnew form or structure, but only the _potentiality_ of such a new form:\nwhich, in suitable circumstances, builds _itself_ up out of surrounding\ninorganic and organic material.\" As Lord Grimthorpe expresses the same\ntruth:[161]\n\n     If we suppose an apple-tree to have once grown somehow, and to have\n     somehow got power to produce seeds, that would not produce any more\n     apple-trees, unless the seeds, and all the adjacent atoms that are\n     wanted, had the power and the will to combine and grow into another\n     apple-tree. The first hen that laid an egg performed a wonderful\n     feat enough, but it would have done no good unless the atoms of the\n     egg also knew and resolved what to do to turn themselves into a\n     chicken. Yet spontaneous evolutionists are in the habit of slurring\n     over generation as a thing too \"natural,\" and therefore too easy\n     and simple to require explanation.\n\nThe continual operation of a law such as this, certainly does not remove\nmysteries, nor make it more easy to understand how the order and the\nmarvels of the universe can rationally be attributed to Chance rather\nthan to Design, according to \"this new philosophy of effects without\ncauses and laws without a lawgiver.\"[162] For \"fortuitous\" means, as\nProfessor Case has well observed,[163] not the accidental, as opposed to\nthe regular laws of nature, but the spontaneous necessity of nature, as\nopposed to the voluntary designs of intelligence. Nor is it only in the\norganic world that we find the need of such a factor to explain\nphenomena; for it is throughout more essential than any other force to\naccount for Nature as we find her--in such a manner as to satisfy the\nlogical demands of our mind. We learn as little from observation and\nexperiment as to the fundamental laws of matter,--gravitation, for\ninstance, which Faraday and Herschel termed \"the mystery of mysteries,\"\nor chemical affinities, or the nature of Ether--as concerning anything\nin organic nature; though in the latter we undoubtedly mount to a higher\nplane of mysteriousness. And in either case we could learn nothing\nwhatever,--that is to say, Science would be wholly impossible,--did we\nnot find natural phenomena respond to our enquiries with what seems an\nintelligence akin to our own. And accordingly it appears but\nreasonable,--that is to say, truly scientific,--to exclaim as did even\nDiderot--\"Quoi! le monde form\u00e9 prouverait moins une intelligence que le\nmonde expliqu\u00e9!\"\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\nMONISM\n\n\nAll systems of philosophy that reject the idea of an intelligent First\nCause, which alone is self-existent, and whose being is of a higher\norder than that of aught else,--base their denial on the assumption that\nno such distinction of nature either exists or is possible,--that there\nis but one reality, namely the substance whereof the sensible world\nconsists,--that this has always existed with the same forces it has now,\nand that it is the source of all phenomena. This assumption of the\nunreality of whatever is beyond the scope of sense, which has ever been\nat the bottom of materialistic systems, is now elaborately formulated as\na creed, declared by Professor Haeckel and his following to be the only\ncreed which science can tolerate. This is termed _Monism_,--from the\nGreek M\u00f3nos, \"single,\" and is opposed to _Dualism_, or the\ndoctrine that there are two orders of being, or two distinct substances,\nmaterial and spiritual.[164]\n\nAccording to monistic teaching, therefore, there exists but one _Thing_,\nthat which we usually call Matter, but might equally well call\nMind,--for all phenomena whatever, whether mental or material, are but\nvarious shapes which it assumes, exhibiting diverse aspects of itself.\nThus all the objects which appear to have a being of their own,--as the\nglobe we inhabit, the furniture of earth and heaven, we ourselves,--are\nbut the forms momentarily assumed by this protean entity in its\nceaseless transfigurations, and have no more existence of their own than\nthe ripples on a pool of water or the faces we see in the fire. It\nfollows that when the particular phase of this basic substance is ended\nwhich brings us into being, (or rather which we _are_,) we like\neverything else, sink into blank nothing,--so that the mighty dead whom\nnations honour, or the loved ones whose memory we cherish, are blotted\nout of existence as utterly as the days and nights which made up the\nspan of their lives. But amongst its permutations and combinations this\nsolitary reality can produce the phenomena which we call thought, just\nas much as those which we call motion, and accordingly the _Aeneid_ or\n_Hamlet_ is its work, a mechanical product of evolution, no less than a\nseam of coal, or an eclipse of the moon.\n\nSuch, in outline, is the philosophical system which commends itself, as\nProfessor Haeckel assures us,[165] to all men of science, who combine\nthe necessary conditions, of scientific knowledge, mental acumen, moral\ncourage, and intellectual independence. It may be rightly described as\nmaterialistic pantheism; for while, according to it, everything is\nequally divine, in the only sense in which anything can be so,\neverything is likewise equally material, as falling under the category\nof what we know as matter, and within the direct cognizance of physical\nscience.\n\nAccurately to sketch a doctrine such as this is a task of no slight\ndifficulty. It undoubtedly contradicts the instinctive teaching of our\nconsciousness, so that, as Professor Haeckel admits[166] in the\nprimitive stages of both religion and philosophy Monism is unknown.\nMoreover, even those who most loudly profess it, have by no means as yet\nsucceeded in realizing their own system, and after having from time to\ntime formally enunciated its articles, proceed forthwith to ignore them,\nand in the staple of their discourse speak like other men in terms which\nhave no meaning if the tenets of their creed have any. As a natural\nresult their exposition of monistic doctrine is not very easy of\napprehension, but it seems to be not unfairly reflected in the above\nsummary.\n\nProfessor Haeckel himself thus expounds \"that unifying conception of\nnature as a whole which we designate in a single word as Monism.\"[167]\n\n     By this we unambiguously express our conviction that there lives\n     \"one spirit in all things,\" and that the whole cognizable world is\n     constituted, and has been developed, in accordance with one common\n     fundamental law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential\n     unity of inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been\n     evolved from the former only at a comparatively late period. We\n     cannot draw a sharp line of distinction between these two great\n     divisions of nature, any more than we can recognize an absolute\n     distinction between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, or\n     between the lower animals and man. Similarly, we regard the whole\n     of human knowledge as a structural unity; in this sphere we refuse\n     to accept the distinction usually drawn between the natural and the\n     spiritual. The latter is only a part of the former (or _vice\n     vers\u00e2_); both are one. Our monistic view of the world belongs,\n     therefore, to that group of philosophical systems which from other\n     points of view have been designated also as mechanical or as\n     pantheistic.\n\nMore concisely and clearly, Professor Romanes tells us:[168]\n\n     Mental phenomena and physical phenomena, although apparently\n     diverse, are really identical.\n\nAnd in a work recently issued for the express purpose of expounding and\ndiffusing the new gospel, we read:[169]\n\n     Just as the same particles of matter may at one time form parts of\n     a rose, and at another time parts of a mushroom, so the same force\n     may at one time strike a church as lightning, and at another time\n     may be the mother-love that rocks the cradle.\n\nIf such conceptions are not easy to grasp, there can be no doubt as to\nthe practical conclusions to which they lead. We have already heard from\nProfessor Haeckel that human freedom is an utter delusion. We have\nlikewise seen that the only term in prospect is utter annihilation,\nwhich Professor Haeckel endeavours to persuade us is the consummation we\nought to wish.\n\n\"The best we can desire,\" he says,[170] \"after a courageous life, spent\nin doing good according to our light, is the eternal peace of the grave.\n'Lord give them an eternal rest.'\"\n\nIt is evident however that in order to secure such a reward it is not\nnecessary to show any courage, or attempt any sort of good-work, for\naccording to him it equally awaits the most selfish and abandoned\nvoluptuary.\n\nFinally,[171]\n\n     At our death there disappears only the individual form in which the\n     nerve-substance was fashioned, and the personal \"soul\" which\n     represented the work performed by this. The complicated chemical\n     combinations of that nervous mass pass over into other\n     combinations--by decomposition, and the kinetic energy produced by\n     them is transformed into other forms of nature.\n\n      Imperial C\u00e6sar, dead and turned to clay,\n      Might stop a hole to keep the wind away, etc.--\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nwhich lines others besides Haeckel are fond of quoting on this subject\nas if they had any possible connexion with it. It would be more to the\npoint, and far more interesting, were some indication afforded of the\nchemical equivalent of the qualities which made C\u00e6sar imperial, or those\nwhich distinguished the author of the above lines from the bards of our\nMusic Halls. That, when a man is no more, his material part may serve\nvarious material purposes, is no more than was known to the first savage\nwho made a drum with his enemy's skin, or used his skull for a\ndrinking-cup.\n\nAs has been said, the Monistic philosophy claims to be above all things\nscientific, and upon this ground are we bidden to accept it. But what is\nthe meaning of this claim? The one argument, apart from mere assertion,\nbrought to show that spirit is not distinct from matter, is drawn from\nthe part undoubtedly played by the brain in the process of thought,\nthough we see far less in this, as in other connexions, than the\nassertions made by unscientific writers might lead us to imagine. But\nwhen all this is most fully acknowledged can it be said that the state\nof the question is changed from what it was? To listen to Monists, it\nmight be supposed that the intimate connexion between soul and body is\na new discovery, undreamt of in former ages,--and that we have now\narrived at a demonstration that it is our material part that actually\ndoes our thinking. But, as a matter of fact, like other fundamental\nquestions, this is exactly as it has ever been, and so far as Science is\nconcerned, we are just as much in the dark respecting it as men ever\nwere. Though the philosophers of former days were unaware of all the\ndepartmental details of brain activity, they understood as well as we do\nthe essential point, that in our composite nature soul and body form\n_one_ being, whose every operation is of mixed character like itself.\nThe soul alone is the intelligent principle, yet all objects of\nknowledge must come to it through sense, and in the senses it can be\nreached only by the mechanical media of light, or sound, or touch. So\nfirm was their grip of this principle that the Schoolmen styled the soul\nthe \"substantial form\" of the body, and in their mouth this term\nexpressed a union more essential and intimate than modern philosophers\ncan perhaps imagine.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, have all the results of modern research brought\nanything to light which tends to show that matter can by any possibility\n_think_? We are assured on the contrary, upon unimpeachable authority,\nthat however we may succeed in tracing the mechanical processes of\nsensation to their furthest limit, it remains absolutely inconceivable\nto us how the gulf is crossed that lies between this and rational\nperception. So Professor Tyndall tells us:[172]\n\n     The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding\n     facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite\n     thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur\n     simultaneously, we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor\n     apparently any rudiments of an organ, which would enable us to pass\n     by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear\n     together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so\n     expanded as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the\n     brain, were we capable of following all their motions, all their\n     groupings and electrical discharges, if such there be, and were we\n     intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and\n     feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the\n     problem--\"How are these physical processes connected with the facts\n     of consciousness?\" The chasm between the two classes remains still\n     intellectually impassable.\n\nWith these views Professor Huxley[173] expresses his agreement, and\nalthough he contrives to confuse the issue very considerably, as is not\nunusual when he undertakes to philosophize, he lays down in the clearest\npossible terms that nothing whatever is _known_ as to the connexion of\nmechanical processes with thought, whence it follows that on this point\nScience has nothing to tell us.\n\n\"I really know nothing whatever [he writes] and never hope to know\nanything, of the steps by which the passage from molecular movement to\nstates of consciousness is effected.\"\n\nIt should be needless to repeat that if nothing is known regarding all\nthis, it is mere charlatanism to pretend that Science tells us anything\nabout it, and those who make such assertions use words to which no\nmeaning can attach. Unfortunately such a practice is far from uncommon\nin connexion with these questions. What sense can there be conceivable\nin the well-known materialistic doctrine that the brain secretes\nthought, just as the proper organs secrete bile or saliva? Bile and\nsaliva are material substances, with a definite chemical constitution,\neach adapted to one definite function. But, Thought! It would be as\nintelligible to talk of secreting the British Constitution, the Steam\nEngine, and the Differential Calculus.\n\nSo much for the sole basis of Monistic argument. When we turn to some\nother considerations it certainly becomes no easier to understand the\nclaim of Monism to be scientific. In the first place, as we have seen,\nin order to furnish the system with any semblance of truth, it has been\nfound necessary to attribute to the ultimate elements of matter\nqualities which all our experience denies them; for Professor Haeckel\nhas told us that \"the two fundamental forms of substance, ponderable\nmatter and ether, are not dead, and only moved by extrinsic force, but\nthey are endowed with sensation and will.\" Of such attributes, and that\nof self-mobility, it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been\nsaid already. Assuredly nothing can look less like the great ultimate\nreality, of whose ceaseless metamorphoses, we are but a flitting phase,\nthan the material substances with which we can do what we like,\ninvestigating their laws, exploring their constitution, and setting them\ntasks which we know exactly how they will accomplish.\n\nAnother point in the same connexion is no less important. What is this\none _Thing_, this Ultimate and Solitary Self-existent Reality, from\nwhich Monism takes its title? Professor Haeckel has told us of two\nfundamental forms of substance,--ponderable matter and ether. These he\nevidently supposes, as his creed requires, to be radically the same: but\nwhat right has he to take such a supposition for a fact? and unless this\nunity be a fact, what becomes of Monism? What has Science ever\ndiscovered that can justify any one in speaking of Ether and Matter as\none and the same? How, then, can a theory that assumes their identity be\ntermed \"scientific?\"\n\nOr, leaving Ether alone, \"that half-discovered entity,\" as Lord\nSalisbury styled it on a famous occasion, and restricting our attention\nto ponderable matter, concerning which we know a little more,--how can\neven this be spoken of as \"One\"? As we have seen already it is only by a\nfigure of speech that the term \"Matter\" can be used at all. It stands\nnot for a single thing, but for countless millions and billions of\natoms, dispersed through space, some of one kind some of another, no one\nof which can be imagined to owe its existence or its properties to any\nother. To say that matter is self-existent is to say that every several\natom is self-existent. If this be so, and if this be the ultimate\nReality,--then there are as many first principles, or first causes, as\nthere are atoms. Yet none of these could do anything to the purpose\ntowards the evolution of anything, without the concurrence of a\nmultitude of others, nor would such concurrence be possible but for the\nreign of law, which none of them can have instituted, but to which all\nalike are subject. Were matter the great reality, even matter composed\nof \"animated atoms,\" the term _Monism_ would be sadly out of keeping,\nand should yield its place to _Myriadism_. If, on the other hand, there\n_is_ a unifying principle amid such diversity, this it must be which can\ncontrol and direct all to one end.\n\nIt is undoubtedly hard to understand how the First Principle of all\nthings can be supposed to consist of Atoms, but this is one of the\nperplexities in which monistic doctrines abound. That atoms _are_, so\nfar as we know, the ultimate constituents of the Fundamental Reality,\nProfessor Haeckel admits. It is true, he adds, that our knowledge of\nthese ultimate elements is still far from satisfying, and he likewise\nanticipates that atoms will someday be discovered not really to be\nultimate, but forms of something, more primal still.\n\n     Although [he says][174] Monism is on the one hand for us an\n     indispensable and fundamental conception in science, and although,\n     on the other hand, it strives to carry back all phenomena, without\n     exception, to the mechanism of the atom, we must nevertheless still\n     admit that as yet we are by no means in a position to form any\n     satisfactory conception of the exact nature of these atoms, and\n     their relation to the general space-filling, universal ether.\n     Chemistry long ago succeeded in reducing all the various natural\n     substances to combinations of a relatively small number of\n     elements; and the most recent advances of that science have made it\n     in the highest degree probable that these elements ... are\n     themselves in turn only different combinations of a varying number\n     of atoms of one single original element. But in all this we have\n     not as yet obtained any further light as to the real nature of\n     these original atoms or their primal energies.\n\nFrom which it is clear, that, while the considerations above presented\nlose none of their force, the Monistic system, by the avowal of its\nchief apostle, is based on complete ignorance concerning all which could\nfurnish it with a foundation.\n\nBut by far the most serious consideration yet remains. If, according to\nMonistic teaching men are but bubbles on the surface of reality, and are\ninevitably carried as it wills,--there is an end of all distinction\nbetween good and evil, right and wrong, merit and guilt. One man, or one\nline of conduct, is as good, or as bad, as another, being all equally\nthe products of Evolution, and aspects of the great Monistic\nprinciple;--\"Jack the Ripper,\" and Socrates, Messalina and Queen\nVictoria, Chief Justice Scroggs and Sir Thomas More, are none of them in\nany possible sense one whit better or worse than the others,--inasmuch\nas they all did but act as puppets actuated by one and the same\noriginal, playing its own part in them all.\n\nAnd in like manner as regards Truth. It must follow that a man's\nbeliefs, like his actions, are as much beyond his own control as his\nstature or the colour of his hair. If Professor Haeckel calls Monism\nsupreme wisdom, and I call it nonsense, we are equally right, for each\nis the mouthpiece of the same one all-embracing first-principle. What\neach believes is the only thing possible for him to believe, and, so far\nas he is concerned, is the only truth.\n\nBut here comes in a perplexity. If such be the case, if there be no\nFree-will, and no possibility whatever of doing or believing anything\nbut what is predetermined for us as a necessary part of our\nbeing,--where is the sense of all the strenuous efforts that are being\nmade to convert the people to a belief which, according to its own\nprinciples, nothing in the world can make them accept, unless nothing in\nthe world can prevent them from accepting it? What again is the meaning\nof organizations, such as we hear of, for giving ethical instruction to\nthe young on a Monistic and determinist basis? What can be the possible\nsense of giving ethical lectures to young people, if it is really\nbelieved that the course of each is marked out for him more rigorously\nthan the path of a city omnibus? \"If\" said Professor Paul Darnley in Mr.\nMallock's clever satire,--\"If we would be solemn, and high, and happy,\nand heroic, and saintly, we have but to strive and struggle to do what\nwe cannot for an instant avoid doing,\"--namely, conform to the laws of\nmatter. If Monists were to limit their aspirations to this, their\nteaching would at least be intelligible. It ceases to be so, when they\nfeel compelled to graft on their Monistic stock the Dualistic notions of\nRight and Wrong, Truth and Error. But, as Dr. Johnson said respecting\nFree-will, no one ever believes the arguments on the other side, however\nloudly he may profess to do so. And in the same way it is quite clear\nthat no Monist can get himself really to accept Monism.[175]\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\nORGANIC EVOLUTION\n\n\nWe have now considered the question of Evolution in the larger and more\nfundamental signification of the term to which, as we noted at starting,\nvery different meanings are attached; and at this stage of our\ndiscussion it will be convenient to sum up the main conclusions at which\nwe have arrived.\n\nIt is, in the first place, unwarrantable to pretend that the discoveries\nof modern Science, brilliant and marvellous as they undoubtedly are,\nhave thrown any light upon the origin of the Material Universe, or of\nits forces, or of the laws according to which its operations proceed.\nNor has Science anything to tell as to the origin of life, of sensation,\nor of reason. Nothing as yet discovered by her, or which she can discern\nany prospect of discovering, adds aught to our knowledge regarding such\npoints as these.\n\nTherefore, to say that the doctrine of Evolution as affirmed by Science,\nexplains the existence of the world we know, is untrue and unscientific.\n\nMoreover, we have seen that, as a factor without which the Order of\nNature is unintelligible, the First Cause to which her existence is\nowing must be possessed of Intelligence, determining her processes\naccording to its purposes. Hence it follows that no system of philosophy\nsatisfies our reason which would find the ultimate explanation of all\nthings in the forces of matter themselves which it is the province of\nScience to investigate.\n\nOn the other hand, in maintaining that Purpose must needs have acted, we\ndo not assume to pronounce as to the manner of its action. To say that\nPurpose rules every detail in the making or development of the universe,\ndoes not by any means signify that it interferes at every step with the\nlaws of Nature. Rather, these laws are the expression of Purpose,--its\nmachinery to secure its designed result. Assuming, for instance, the\nprimeval existence of Professor Huxley's cosmic nebula, so constituted\nthat the actual world was bound naturally to issue from it, as does a\nchicken from an egg, or an oak from an acorn,--while we find it\ninconceivable that such a piece of mechanism should originate without an\nintelligence to design it,--we have no difficulty in supposing that\nintelligence to have exhibited itself once for all at the first\nbeginning, and to have fashioned the actual world by shaping the causes\nor conditions by which it was to be produced, thus making everything,\nnot directly and immediately but as St. Augustine held \"_causaliter et\nseminaliter_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere remains for consideration Evolution in its narrower sense, in\nwhich its operations are restricted to organic nature, such Evolution\nbeing commonly, but incorrectly, identified with \"Darwinism.\" Understood\nthus, \"Evolution\" signifies no more than that the various species of\nanimals and plants have descended _genetically_ one from another,\nthrough a graduated series of intermediate forms which link them\ntogether. _Darwinism_ is one particular mode of explaining how such\ntransformations may be accounted for,--namely, by what is known as\n\"Natural Selection.\" The theory of Evolution, as thus concerned with\nOrganic life in particular, is compendiously described as\n\"Transformism,\" under which head Darwinism is evidently included.\n\nTransformism makes no pretence to account for the origin of life,\nwhether animal or vegetable. Living things must exist before any\nquestion arises as to their transmutation. But, given the existence of\nlife, Transformists undertake in the first place to show that Organic\nEvolution has, as a matter of fact, occurred, and is still in process of\noccurrence; and secondly, to exhibit the manner in which this process is\nactually worked out. As to the first point, all Transformists, whether\nDarwinians or others, are necessarily at one, for the fact of Evolution\nis equally essential for every explanation of its method. It is when\nthey come to explain in what manner evolutionary transformations have\nbeen wrought that Transformists divide themselves into various schools,\neach of which relies upon some particular factor to furnish the required\nexplanation. Thus besides Darwinians pure and simple, there are\nneo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, neo-Lamarckians, Weismannists, and others,\nascribing the results to physiological selection, sexual-selection, or\nother forces, rather than natural selection. Of such systems, however,\nexcepting only Darwinism, it will be unnecessary to speak in particular.\nThe great fundamental question is whether genetic Evolution be really\nestablished as a fact,--which, as has been said, equally affects them\nall--and if it be advisable to treat more in detail of Darwinism, it is\nnot because this does not hold good of it as of the rest--but because\nthis particular system has obtained such a position, is so much in the\nmouths of men, and has been made the basis of so many and such\nfar-reaching consequences, that it is impossible to pass it by.\n\nMuch the same may indeed be said even of the assumed fact of Organic\nEvolution underlying all Transformist theories. This does not affect the\nfundamental problems with which we are concerned, and leaving untouched,\nas it does, the question of the origin of Life it makes even less\npretence than the cosmic-nebular hypothesis just spoken of to trace the\noperations of Nature to their ultimate source. It might therefore appear\nsuperfluous to devote to it so much attention as, if treated at all, it\nmust needs demand.\n\nBut, whatever may thus appear from the point of view of strict logic, it\nis abundantly evident that in common estimation the assumed fact of\nOrganic transformation is the foundation-stone of Evolutionary systems\nof every kind. And not unnaturally; for here at last we have something\nwith which Science can deal, strictly according to her own methods. If\nshe knows, and can know, nothing from actual observation concerning the\nfirst beginnings of matter, of the cosmic nebula, or of life, it is\nquite otherwise with the history of living things since they first\nappeared, and with the phenomena of life as it exists and is propagated.\nHere are questions which are strictly scientific, forming the\nsubject-matter of Pal\u00e6ontology and Biology, and these Sciences\nsupplemented by others, such as Geology, Physical Geography, and\nAstronomy, furnish a mass of evidence bearing upon the subject of\nOrganic Evolution. When therefore the great majority of men of Science,\ndeclare that the fact of genetic Transformism is established beyond the\npossibility of doubt, Evolutionists find themselves supplied with a\nplausible foothold on which to stand and rest their fulcrum, while, like\nArchimedes, they proceed to move the world.\n\nThat men of Science generally thus agree, cannot be questioned, and\nalthough this agreement is by no means so universal as is popularly\nsupposed, there is no doubt that were the question to be settled by\nenumeration of the authorities on either side, Transformism would win\neasily. It may also be freely acknowledged, that Transformism in general\nand Darwinism in particular are theories to which on _\u00e0 priori_ grounds\nno exception need be taken, and that, so far at least as concerns their\ngeneral scope, apart from the origin of Man, no one can reasonably\nstart with a prepossession against them. Nay, we will go farther, and\nsay that to our way of thinking it appears immensely more probable, that\nthings should always have gone on as they go on now, by the operation of\nthe same natural laws, and that specific forms should have been\nnaturally produced, as individuals of a species are produced now, by\ngeneration,--rather than that not only repeated acts of specific\ncreation, but any operations totally different from those we witness,\nshould have occurred to interrupt, and as we should judge, to mar, the\nLaw of Continuity.\n\nAll this is true. But we are engaged on a scientific enquiry,--and if\nthere be one principle more than another upon which Science insists, it\nis that we should prove all things, not by authority, but by\nevidence,--and that we should seek evidence, not in pre-conceived ideas\nas to what should be, but in observation of what is. Accordingly, while\nwe are most ready to accept Transformism or Darwinism should we find\nsolid reasons for doing so, we are bound, for the sake of Science, to\ndemand unimpeachable proofs before subscribing to doctrines which are\nmade responsible for so much.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore proceeding farther it will be necessary to exhibit more in detail\nthe exact character of the question we have to discuss.\n\nAccording to the celebrated \"Formula\" of Mr. Herbert Spencer--\"Evolution\nis an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;\nduring which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite, incoherent\nhomogeneity, to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and\nduring which the contained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.\"\nIt would be interesting to know what idea this definition conveys to\nmany of those who are in the habit of quoting it, but, so far as organic\nEvolution is concerned, it must mean that whereas in the earlier and\nlower forms of life one organ performed many different functions in an\nimperfect manner, evolutionary development has gradually produced higher\nforms, in which each function has its special organ, by which it is more\nperfectly discharged. As an extreme instance of the former condition,\nthe Hydra has but two organs, an outside which respires, and an inside\nwhich digests. If it be turned inside out these functions are reversed;\nthe skin becoming the stomach, and the stomach the skin. Thus Evolution\nhas been an ascending process from the lower to the higher, from the\nless to the more organized.\n\nSuch, it must be added, has undoubtedly been the course of life. Amongst\nplants and animals alike, it began with lower and simpler forms, after\nwhich succeeded in due order others more developed and elaborately\norganized, the order in which they came upon the scene being much the\nsame as that in which we should naturally arrange their specimens in a\nmuseum. Thus in the vegetable kingdom, first came such growths as\nsea-weeds and fungi, followed by ferns and club-mosses,--yews and\npines,--and so through grasses, canes, and palms, to the highest group\nin which are included our forest trees and the bulk of our garden\nflowers. In like manner, the animal series,--to mention only leading\ngroups of which evidence is found,--starting with almost structureless\n_Protozoa_, followed by such forms as starfish and sponges, worms,\nmolluscs and crustaceans, has advanced to vertebrate creatures--fishes,\namphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,--and finally to man.\n\nThus, in a quite intelligible sense, there has certainly been Evolution,\nor development,--that is to say, an orderly progression from lower types\nto higher, throughout the history of life on earth, from its\ncommencement to the present time. But, this is not the point. Was such\nEvolution or development _genetic_? Was it wrought by descent with\nmodification of form from form? _That_ is what we have to enquire. If\nthis has not been so, there has been no Evolution in the sense intended\nby Evolutionists.\n\nAccording to their highest authority, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Evolution\nmeans \"the production of all organic forms by the accumulation of\nmodifications and of divergences by the addition of differences to\ndifferences.\"\n\n     Beyond all question [he adds] unlikenesses of structure gradually\n     arise among the members of successive generations. We find that\n     there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the\n     source of specific differences, a process which, though slow, does,\n     in time, produce changes--a process which to all appearance would\n     produce in millions of years any amount of changes.[176]\n\nThe Transformist doctrine is, therefore, that one species of plants or\nanimals, has in natural course grown out of another, through the\naggregation of changes each exceedingly minute. Darwinism adds that the\nruling principle of this process is Natural Selection. These are the\npoints on which our enquiry turns, and we may conveniently commence with\nthe second.\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\nDARWINISM\n\n\nIt must first be observed that special consideration of Mr. Darwin's\ntheory is rendered necessary even more imperatively on account of the\nclaims advanced on his behalf by others, than of those to which he\nhimself made any pretence. Without question the idea prevails almost\nuniversally, that he has furnished a scientific explanation of all\norganic phenomena through the operation of purely natural laws, and has\nthus rendered obsolete the idea that any power beyond Nature is required\nin order to account for the totality of things, or that there are any\nfeatures of the world which indicate the operation of intelligent\npurpose.\n\nThat such ideas should be widely prevalent amongst those who, having no\nspecial acquaintance with the subject, must depend for their knowledge\non the popularizers of Science, is scarcely wonderful, for such\nteachers, with scarcely an exception, so declare, and occasionally real\nmen of Science lend the weight of their authority to similar\nstatements.\n\nIt will be sufficient to cite Professor Haeckel, who writes thus:[177]\n\n     It seemed to Kant so impossible to explain the orderly processes in\n     the living organism without postulating super-natural final causes\n     (that is, a purposive creative force) that he said, \"It is quite\n     certain that we cannot even satisfactorily understand, much less\n     elucidate, the nature of an organism and its internal faculty on\n     purely mechanical natural principles--it is so certain, indeed,\n     that we may confidently say: It is absurd for a man even to\n     conceive the idea that some day a Newton will arise who can explain\n     the origin of a single blade of grass by natural laws uncontrolled\n     by design. Such a hope is entirely forbidden us.\" Seventy years\n     afterwards this impossible Newton of the organic world appeared in\n     the person of Charles Darwin, and achieved the great task that Kant\n     had deemed impracticable.\n\nIt is quite impossible to understand how such an assertion can be made\nby any one who knows the facts. Not only did Mr. Darwin never profess to\nhave achieved any thing of the kind,--he repeatedly and distinctly\ndisclaimed and repudiated any such supposition. Thus at the very end of\nhis life (August 28, 1881) he wrote concerning one who had spoken of him\nlike Professor Haeckel:\n\n     He implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most\n     monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks, the more one feels\n     the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. If we consider the whole\n     universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of\n     chance.[178] The whole question seems to me insoluble.\n\nBut it should not be necessary to appeal to such disclaimers in order to\nshow how absolutely unwarrantable are the pretensions made on Mr.\nDarwin's behalf to have solved, or to have attempted to solve, the\nfundamental problems which scientific research unceasingly suggests but\nhas never been able to elucidate. It should be quite sufficient to\nexamine his theory as it actually is, and although its scope is\nimmensely less ambitious than has been represented, it still occupies,\neven in its genuine form, a position of sufficient importance to\nchallenge investigation.\n\nMr. Darwin's famous and epoch-making book, published in November, 1859,\nwas entitled _On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection,\nor the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_. In it\nhe undertook to show how from one species[179] of animals or plants,\nanother, quite distinct from it, may be derived by means of processes\nwhich go on in Nature every day, through the accumulation of minute\ndifferences occurring in successive generations, and guided to their\ncollective result by the force of \"Natural Selection.\" As man, he\nargues, has by means of selection been able to produce in a brief space\nsuch astonishing varieties among his domestic animals and plants--as\ndogs, pigeons, roses or apples,--Nature, with the practically unlimited\nages of geological time at her disposal, must be able to produce far\ngreater and more enduring transformations, through the accumulation of\nminute differences, such as those upon which man has worked,--if only a\nfactor can be found which amid the infinity of diverse and discordant\nvariations spontaneously occurring, could, like the breeder or the\ngardener, pick out those leading to one particular result, and thus\nsecure its accomplishment. Such a force Mr. Darwin conceives is found in\n\"Natural Selection,\" which he thus explains.\n\nThe tendency of organic life, whether vegetable or animal, being to\npropagate itself enormously,--and the life-sustaining capacity of the\nearth being limited,--it necessarily follows that only a fraction of the\ncreatures which are born can survive to maturity, and that while those\nbest fitted to live will live, those less well fitted will die. Thus,\nthere is set up a constant struggle for existence, in which every\nadvantage, however slight, must tell, so that those possessing such\nadvantages in one generation will be the parents of the next. But in the\ncourse of propagation, the offspring never exactly reproduce the parent\nform, from which they vary, some in one way some in another, and as some\nof these variations cannot help being advantageous to their possessors\nin the struggle, we have here the required factor for the production of\nnew forms. Any thus beneficially equipped, (although the variation, and\nconsequently the advantage, must in each instance be exceedingly\nslight,) will have the chances on their side against their less favoured\nfellows, whom in the long run they will supplant. And as their\noffspring, or some of them, will carry the profitable variation somewhat\nfurther, the stream of life will thus be set in such a direction as will\nultimately bring about what might at first appear impossible\nmetamorphoses.\n\nThus, to take a simple and favourite illustration,[180] winged insects\ninhabiting an island far from other land, are liable to be blown out to\nsea and drowned. It is in consequence, an advantage to them to have\ntheir power of flight curtailed, or taken away, and consequently in such\nsituations their wings are generally found to be so reduced as to permit\nlittle or even nothing in the way of flying. Or to take an example of\nanother kind,[181] the extraordinary length of neck which characterizes\nthe giraffe enables it to browse on the higher branches of trees\ninaccessible to other vegetable feeders, and thus gives it an advantage\nover them in times of drought and scarcity of fodder. It can accordingly\nbe easily understood, how its present structure has resulted from\ngradual elongations of the neck, each conferring on its possessor a\nslight advantage.\n\nThe work attributed to Natural Selection in such instances, though no\ndoubt highly important, is comparatively facile, and it would be\ndifficult to say that it could not be accomplished. But Mr. Darwin\nascribes to the same factor, not merely such modification of existing\nstructures, but the creation of entirely new mechanisms for specific\npurposes. We have, for instance, heard his description of the eye and\nits manifold \"inimitable contrivances:\" yet all these, he persuaded\nhimself, might be thus accounted for. The idea, he confessed,[182] seems\nat first sight preposterous; yet, though not without much\ndifficulty,[183] he succeeded in convincing himself, that given the\nrudest and most rudimentary form of eye to start with--no more than a\nnerve sensitive to light but incapable of forming an image--Natural\nSelection might develop therefrom, through an infinite series of\ngradations the inconceivably complex machine that is now found in the\nhigher vertebrates,[184] and the totally different but equally\nmarvellous organs of sight possessed by insects, crustaceans, and other\ncreatures.\n\nIn like manner, Mr. Darwin contended, might the most complex and\nwonderful instincts be generated. As an example may be cited that by\nwhich the hive-bee constructs its combs--of which he thus speaks:[185]\n\n     He must be a dull man who can examine the exquisite structure of a\n     comb, so beautifully adapted to its end, without enthusiastic\n     admiration. We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically\n     solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper\n     shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least\n     possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has\n     been remarked that a skilful workman with fitting tools and\n     measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the\n     true form, though this is perfectly effected by a crowd of bees\n     working in a dark hive.[186] Granting whatever instincts you\n     please, it seems at first sight quite inconceivable how they can\n     make all the necessary angles and planes, or even perceive when\n     they are correctly made. But the difficulty is not nearly so great\n     as it at first appears: all this beautiful work can be shown, I\n     think, to follow from a few simple instincts.\n\nHe accordingly proceeds to argue, that beginning with circular cells,\nlike those of Humble Bees, and progressing through an intermediate form,\ncircular where free, but with flat partition walls where two or more\ncells touch one another, it is quite possible to suppose that Natural\nSelection has effected the whole improvement, those insects which\naccomplished any advance towards more scientific workmanship, and thus\nmade materials go further, having been able to secure a livelihood\nbetter than their competitors.\n\nSuch in brief outline is the Darwinian system, which undertakes to\naccount for all the alleged facts of Organic Evolution by means of the\nabove factor, variously described as \"Natural Selection,\" or the\n\"Survival of the fittest in the Struggle for Existence.\" It should be\nremembered, though it is constantly forgotten, that it is this\nparticular theory as to the working-cause of evolutionary\ntransformations which is the essence of Darwinism. Mr. Darwin did not\noriginate the idea of genetic transformism, which is almost necessarily\nsuggested by the systematic development of life-forms to which Geology\nbears witness. Consequently, long before he came on the scene, the\ndoctrine of transformation had been propounded, especially by Lamarck,\nand if it had met with no general acceptance, this was chiefly because\nno force was indicated which seemed to offer a satisfactory account of\nthe mode in which the required changes could have been wrought. Such a\nforce Mr. Darwin's \"Natural Selection\" was widely taken to furnish, and\nhis theory was eagerly welcomed and adopted by those who only required\nsuch a basis on which to ground beliefs to which they were already\npredisposed, and Darwinism thus obtained that pre-eminent position\nwhich it still retains, at least in popular estimation.\n\nTwo special arguments may here be mentioned, which, although they really\napply to all systems of Organic Evolution, have obtained a prescriptive\nright to be quoted particularly in favour of Darwinism, their bearing on\nwhich is easily seen.\n\nThe first is based on the frequent occurrence of \"rudimentary,\"\n\"fragmentary,\" or \"vestigial\" structures in animals and plants, which,\nalthough now seemingly useless, or even harmful, to their possessors,\nmay be assumed to have been of service to their ancestors, but under\nchanged conditions to have been thrown out of work by Natural Selection,\nand atrophied by disuse. Such are--the splint-bones of the horse,\nrepresenting lost digits,--the rudimentary legs of some whales and\nserpents,--the _mammae_ and mammary glands of male mammals; and in the\nvegetable kingdom,--the aborted pistil in male florets of some\n_compositae_,--the useless corolla of certain wind-fertilized flowers,\nas _plantago_, and indeed the whole floral apparatus of plants which,\nlike Wordsworth's pet the Lesser Celandine,[187] seldom ripen their\nseeds, but depend on other methods of propagation. The other fact cited\non behalf of Darwinism is unquestionably very striking. In the course of\ntheir embryonic development, and even in the initial stages of their\nlife after birth, higher animals pass through various phases in which\nthey exhibit the characteristics of lower forms. Thus all life starts\nfrom a cell, in which there is nothing to shew whether it is ever to be\nanything more than a cell, or is to evolve a plant or animal,--nor, in\nthis latter case, what sort of animal it is to be--a mollusc, for\ninstance, a frog, or a mammal. At a later stage[188] it is impossible to\ndistinguish the embryos of lizards, birds, and mammals except by size.\nEven the human fetus at an early period bears vestiges of gill-clefts or\narches, pointing to an aquatic existence. When the extremities come to\nbe developed,[189] \"The feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet\nof birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the\nsame fundamental form.\" The young of flat-fish such as soles and\nturbots, when they leave the egg are not flat, but shaped like ordinary\nfish, and they wear their eyes in the normal fashion, one on each side\nof their head, not both on the same side like their parents--whose form\nhowever they presently by degrees assume. Young lions and black birds\nare spotted, showing their affinity respectively to panthers and\nthrushes--and so on in numberless instances. All such features, it is\nassumed, indicate the _phylogeny_ of each animal, or the history of the\nrace to which it belongs. As Professor Milnes Marshall succinctly put\nthe matter:[190]\n\n     The phases through which an animal passes in its progress from the\n     egg to the adult are no accidental freaks, no mere matters of\n     developmental convenience, but represent more or less closely ...\n     the successive ancestral stages through which the present condition\n     has been acquired. Evolution tells us that each animal has had a\n     pedigree in the past. Embryology reveals to us this ancestry,\n     because every animal in its own development repeats this history,\n     climbs up its own genealogical tree.\n\nSuch are not by any means the only instances in which the Darwinist can\nappeal to Nature for facts with which his theory well agrees, and which\ntherefore so far furnish a persuasive argument in its favour; but these\nare perhaps the chief ones, and the best known, and may serve as\nrepresentative of their class which it is impossible for us to examine\nin detail.\n\nIt now remains to enquire how far, from the point of view of Science,\nwith which alone we are concerned, the Darwinian hypothesis can make\ngood its claim to our acceptance. When we proceed accordingly to examine\nthe grounds upon which it rests, it must be confessed that as we do so\nit becomes increasingly difficult to understand how such a theory has\nbeen able to obtain such wide acceptance, especially on the ground that\nscientific evidence is in its favour.\n\nOn the very threshold of any such enquiry lies a difficulty the gravity\nof which seems to be strangely overlooked. Darwinism by its own\nconfession knows nothing of Origins, not even of the Origin of Species\nitself. There must be life already existing before Natural Selection has\nanything to select; there must be eyes and honey-cells of some kind,\nbefore they can be improved; there must be Species, before one can be\ntransformed into another. Is it not evident, however, that the cause--of\nwhatever kind it may be--which brought any of these into being, must\nhave _something_,--not to say everything,--to do with the capacities and\npotentialities by which its future history is conditioned? But this\nsupreme and vital factor Mr. Darwin entirely eliminates from his\ncalculation. In his system, the initiating force has no more to do with\nthe subsequent career of its productions, than has the gas which lifts a\nballoon with the direction in which it travels. It is not, on his\ntheory, as the impulse which, besides raising from earth an arrow or\nrifle bullet, directs it to a goal, but, on the contrary, an organism\nonce launched on its course is left to be driven hither and thither and\ntwisted into this form and that, as clouds are by the wind. For the\nvariations through which transformations are wrought, Darwin could find\nno better epithet than \"fortuitous,\" and it is laid down by his\nstaunchest disciples that if such variations be predetermined towards\ncertain results, there is an end of Darwinism.\n\nIt is not easy to understand how any theory can be deemed satisfactory\nwhich thus ignores the initial force, of whose existence and potency we\nhave far clearer evidence than of any other.\n\nWhen we turn from its omissions to study Darwinism as it is, obviously,\nin the first place, still, more than forty years since it was given to\nthe world, it remains only an hypothesis, based not upon observation or\nexperiment but speculation. In no single instance, past or contemporary,\nis one species known to have originated from another. The fact upon\nwhich Mr. Darwin primarily relies is that of variation. Undoubtedly\namongst both plants and animals the offspring are not mere slavish\nreproductions of their parents, as if cast in the same mould, but\nexhibit individual differences, working upon which in domesticated\ninstances, man can by selection produce wonderful varieties, as has\nalready been admitted. But, as M. de Quatrefages says,[191] this tells\nus no more than that species admit of variation; it does not prove that\nthey are capable of transformation, which is the whole point. Certainly,\nsuch transformation has never within our knowledge been effected. No\nbreeder or fancier has succeeded, or can hope to succeed, in producing a\nnew species. Moreover, as was pointed out by a critic whose ability Mr.\nDarwin himself candidly acknowledged,[192] the range of variability as\nwe find it in any species is strictly limited, and although at first it\nis easy,--in the case of some few animals or plants,--to make great\nchanges in particular directions, by selective breeding, it becomes more\nand more difficult as we proceed to continue in the same line. If, for\ninstance, in the case of pigeons, a bird can be produced in six years\nwith head and beak only one-half the size of those whence the process\nstarted, are we to say that in twelve years their bulk will be reduced\nto a quarter, and in twenty-four to an eighth? No one could suppose\nanything so absurd. Mr. Darwin would answer, that he relies upon the\nvast periods of geologic time to produce alterations such as we cannot\npossibly attempt within the few years at our disposal. But, it is\nreplied, no length of time will avail anything for such a purpose,\nunless there be some force to produce variations in the required\ndirection, to the required extent. Such a force is not proved to\nexist--all the evidence is against it. Where art is most practised in\nimprovement of breeds, or the obtaining of any peculiarities--as with\nthe speed of racehorses, the size of toy-terriers, or the \"points\" of\nprize cattle, it becomes most strikingly apparent that we have reached a\nlimit beyond which species will not vary. And until such a cause as we\nrequire is fully proved to exist, its supposed effects cannot be made\nthe basis of scientific argument.\n\n     A given animal or plant, [says the Reviewer] appears to be\n     contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation; one individual\n     lies near one portion of the surface, another individual near\n     another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre. Any\n     individual may produce descendants varying in any direction, but is\n     more likely to produce descendants varying towards the centre of\n     the sphere, and the variations in that direction will be greater in\n     amount than the variations towards the surface. Thus a set of\n     racers of equal merit indiscriminately breeding will produce more\n     colts and foals of inferior than of superior breed, and the falling\n     off of the degenerate will be greater than the improvement of the\n     select (p. 282).\n\nSimilarly M. Blanchard declares:[193]\n\n     All investigation and observation make it clear that, while the\n     variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in\n     very different degrees, yet in its most astonishing manifestations\n     it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass.\n\nAnd the facts of nature, as we know them, far from favouring the\ninstability of species, exhibit a tenacity of form compelling us to\ntreat them as practically immutable. Thus, as Mr. Carruthers points\nout,[194] in the notoriously variable genus _Salix_, or willow-tribe,\nwhich seems to be actively advancing towards a multiplication of its\nsubdivisions, sub-genera, species, varieties, and hybrid forms,--one\nspecies is found, _S. polaris_, dating from before the Glacial Epoch,\nwhich has been driven from England and other lands, by climatic changes,\nto within the Arctic circle of both Hemispheres,--yet amid this stress\nof circumstances has preserved its specific identity, down even to the\ncasual variations, which might be supposed to furnish the\nstarting-points for new developments. Yet in this tribe, if anywhere,\nevidence of specific evolution might be looked for.[195]\n\nOther instances seem to show that even under new and trying conditions\nthose creatures survive best which keep closest to the central family\ntype, not those which diverge in any direction. Thus, of European\nsparrows introduced in America, Mr. Bumpus writes:[196]\n\n     Natural Selection is most destructive of those birds which have\n     departed most from the ideal type, and its activity raises the\n     general standard by favouring those birds which approach the\n     structural ideal.\n\nVariation supplies the raw material upon which Natural Selection is\nsupposed to work. When we turn to examine the process by which its\nresults should be produced, we find, quite apart from the above\ndifficulties, a crop of others still more formidable.\n\nIt must be remembered, that the variations on which Natural Selection\nmust work are in each instance extremely minute, well-nigh\ninfinitesimal. Mr. Darwin was as strongly opposed to the idea of Nature\nmaking sudden bounds, as to that of a predetermined course of\ndevelopment. But, he argued, an extra chance of living, however slight,\nmust necessarily tell in the long run, the theory of probabilities\ngiving results as certain as any others in mathematics, and, according\nto these, we may confidently say that, given sufficient time, the\nfavoured individuals would infallibly distance their competitors.\n\nThe impressiveness of such an argument depends upon its seemingly\nmathematical character, which is however wholly fallacious, for the\nprobabilities are all the other way. It is perfectly true that a\nbeneficial variation however slight will confer on its happy possessor a\ncorresponding advantage in the struggle for life, as compared with each\n_individual_ of the non-favoured herd, but, as to that herd\ncollectively, the chances would, on the contrary, ensure that _some_ of\nits members should outlive the favoured one. Let us even imagine the\nadvantage of the latter to be very great, great enough to double his\nchances, so that the odds on his surviving each of his fellows will be\ntwo to one. Yet if there be a dozen of them to contend with, the odds\nwill be six to one _against_ his surviving the lot. And what of the\nactual case of minutest benefits conferred by variation? In order to\ngive them even an equal chance of survival, the numbers of those\npossessing such advantages must be large in proportion as the advantages\nthemselves are small. Thus, if a variation increases the chance of life\nby one-thousandth part, so that the odds on its possessor are 1001,\nagainst 1000 on each non-possessor, yet unless the number of possessors\nbe to that of non-possessors as 1,000 to 1,001, their collective chances\nwill not even be equal. As it is quite absurd to suppose that casual\nvariations could ever occur in such wholesale fashion, how can it be\nsupposed that, were Natural Selection the only factor operating, minute\nadvantages could be accumulated by variation even in the simplest cases?\n\nBut it is also hard to suppose that in any actual case is the matter so\nsimple as it appears to our limited comprehension. To take for instance\nthe above example of the giraffe. It is very well to have a neck that\nwill reach high-branches of a tree,--but this is not everything. For the\nmere prolongation of life, much else is required, fleet limbs to\ndistance lions, and keen senses, sight, hearing, and smell, to give\nwarning of the approach of human or other hunters, to say nothing of the\nextra strengthening of muscles and bones which increased size and weight\ndemands. Unless, however, improvements in all these respects happened\ncasually to concur in the same individual, which could scarcely happen,\nit is clear that each would militate against the others, for the\nsurvival of an individual beneficially developed in one respect, would\ntend to the extinction of other beneficial developments, possessed by\nindividuals whom he overcame in the struggle for life.\n\nEven the case of the insular insects is by no means so plain as might at\nfirst sight appear. There can be no doubt that wings are of _some_\nadvantage, or on no system could they be supposed to exist. Nor do their\nadvantages cease because disadvantages outweigh them. If some insects\nare blown out to sea when flying, others will doubtless perish in one\nway or another because they cannot fly. It may even be that those which\ncan fly _best_ will survive, as being able to make head against a breeze\nwhich overpowers others. Natural Selection will thus have many arrows in\nits quiver, some of which must reach the wrong objects.\n\nStill more clearly does this appear in the case of complex structures in\nwhich, if they were produced as Mr. Darwin supposes, variation must have\nhit simultaneously upon independent contrivances, without each of which\nall the others would be useless and confer no benefit at all. In the\neye, for example, to mention but one or two of innumerable similar\npoints, it would be of no avail to have a retina, even such as has been\ndescribed, without a lens to throw an image upon it, set just at the\nproper distance, and provided with muscles to alter its shape according\nto the distance of the object. How can Natural Selection be even\nconceived to have set to work on such a task as this?\n\nIt is still more fundamental to observe that, according to Mr. Darwin's\nown showing, Natural Selection is purely negative in its action. \"If it\ndoes select, it selects for death and not for life.\"[197] It can\noriginate nothing, but only destroy. All that it does for favoured races\nis to spare them while it sweeps away others, and the sole benefit they\nderive from it is to have more ample resources upon which to draw. But\nas for anything they possess in the way of structure or character, they\nmust derive it entirely from themselves--Natural Selection can no more\nconfer it, than the labourer who weeds a garden bed makes the flowers\nthat grow there. Let it be imagined that the first human beings on\nearth, any number of thousand years ago, planted a garden, and\ndetermined to produce a rose, by eliminating every plant that did not\nshow some promise of progress rose-wards. Let the gardeners have been\nendowed with acumen sufficient to detect every symptom of such a\ntendency, and let their operations have been carried on without\ninterruption to this day,--it is obvious that if roses had resulted, it\ncould only be because among the plants they allowed to remain there\nexisted a rose-making quality of some kind, to which, and not to\nanything done by human art or skill, the result was due. It would\nlikewise have to be supposed that there were infinite other\npotentialities latent in the original plants, as of evolving thistles,\nshamrocks, or leeks--all equally awaiting their opportunity. Selective\naction could effectually put such competitors out of the way; but in the\nway of developing a race it could but leave it entirely to itself.\nPrecisely similar is the part played by Natural Selection, except that\nit must needs play it immensely more slowly,--and if no one can fancy\nthat human agency could by any possibility grow roses unless from some\nstock predetermined to grow into a rose and nothing else, what grounds\nhave we that can be called scientific for attributing to a blind\nstruggle for life an incomparably greater potency? Nor does it avail to\nquote the immense extent of time which may be supposed to have been\navailable. No more than Natural Selection has time by itself any\ncreative power. We know on the contrary by experience, that when things\nare not controlled by some principle of order, the lapse of time serves\nonly to make confusion worse confounded.\n\nAnother consideration of prime importance is too frequently ignored. On\nDarwinian principles, each step in any development can be made, not\nbecause it leads to an advantageous result in the future, but only\nbecause it is itself advantageous. At each stage favoured individuals\nsurvive others because they are favoured here and now, not because, when\nthe development they promote shall be completed, their remote\ndescendants will be favoured. Hence it must, for instance, be possible\nto suppose, that all the intermediate forms between two extremes,\nwhereof one is supposed to have originated the other, were, each in its\nday, so beneficial as to preserve their possessors at the expense of\nnon-possessors. But can this possibly be even imagined?\n\nTo take one example. We have heard, speaking of embryology, that the\nfeet of lizards and the wings and feet of birds arise from the same\nfundamental form of limb, whence it is argued that birds and lizards are\nalike descended from a common sauroid, or lizard-like, ancestor, whose\nlimbs in the case of the former class have developed into wings and into\nfeet of a totally new type,--while scales were developing into feathers,\nand innumerable alterations of internal structure were simultaneously in\nprogress. But if so, to confine our attention to one particular, it\nmust be true that each of the innumerable minute gradations between the\nfore-limb of a lizard and the wing of a bird, was in its turn the best\nkind of member for a creature to possess, giving him a distinct\nadvantage in the struggle for existence. Nothing, however, appears\nplainer than that this could not possibly have been the case. The limb\nshaping towards a wing would be a very clumsy and inefficient leg long\nbefore it got to the point at which it became of the slightest use for\npurposes of flight, that is to say before its alteration was accompanied\nby any utility whatever. We can neither imagine that creatures furnished\nwith limbs of such intermediate forms could have been otherwise than\nhopelessly handicapped by them, nor do we find anywhere in the rocks any\ntrace whatever of the innumerable series of modifications which would be\nneeded to link by imperceptible gradations legs and wings together.\n\nIt only serves to make the matter less intelligible, that there _are_\nfound in Secondary strata some few relics of birds with decidedly\nsaurian characteristics,[198] as the _Hesperornis_ and _Ichthyornis_ in\nthe Chalk, and the _Arch\u00e6opteryx_, most ancient of fowls, lower still,\nin the Oolite. All these creatures have lizard-like heads and teeth; the\n_Arch\u00e6opteryx_ in addition has decidedly reptilian characters connected\nwith its wings and tail. But none of them throw the slightest light upon\nthe point we are now considering. In the case of all, the problem of\nflight has been completely solved. Their wings are no rudimentary\nstructures half way between legs and wings, but as finished productions\nas those of to-day. As Professor Huxley acknowledges, if the skeletons\nof _Hesperornis_ and _Icthyornis_ had been found without their skulls,\nthey would probably have been classed without more ado amongst existing\nbirds. The latter \"has, [he tells us,] strong wings, and no doubt\npossessed corresponding powers of flight.\" The wings of _Hesperornis_,\nhe says, resemble those of our divers and grebes, and were probably\nused, like theirs, chiefly for swimming.[199] As for the _Arch\u00e6opteryx_,\nits reptilian features notwithstanding, it is a perfectly-appointed\nbird. As Sir Richard Owen testifies,[200] its wing, despite the\npeculiarities mentioned, is completely developed as to all essentials.\nNor does even this member furnish the creature with its most bird-like\ncharacteristics,--but the keeled breast-bone, so intimately connected\nwith the requirements of flight,--and, still more markedly, the feet.\nProfessor Huxley writes: \"The feet are not only altogether bird-like,\nbut have the special character of the feet of perching birds; while the\nbody had a clothing of true feathers.\"\n\nThus, to whatever these Saurian birds may testify,--and the extreme\nimportance of their evidence none will question--they no more serve to\nbridge the gulf between reptiles and birds, than a group of volcanic\nislets like the Azores bridges the Atlantic, for they supply no vestige\nof a continuous way from one term to the other. Rather, they do but\nenhance the mystery of the transformation, to the manner of which,\ndespite their composite features, they furnish no clue.\n\nAll such difficulties are enormously aggravated by a consideration\nwhich, obvious as it is, seems seldom to be considered. The arguments we\ncommonly hear appear to imply that _one_ parent is sufficient to secure\nthe transmission of a beneficial variation to the next generation. But,\nof course, the parent requires a mate, and unless this mate has chanced\nto hit on the same line of variation, it cannot be supposed that it will\nbe transmitted. Seeing, however, the exceeding minuteness of these\nvariations in each instance, they can avail nothing to bring together\nthe right mates to perpetuate them. Two reptiles, for instance, are not\nthe more likely to pair because their fore limbs have taken the first\nfaint and distant step towards becoming wings, while in the vegetable\nkingdom, notwithstanding Erasmus Darwin's _Loves of the Plants_, the\nidea of any choice of partners is still more grotesque. The allotment of\nmates must therefore be left to Chance; and the results will follow the\nordinary laws of probability. Accordingly, if we suppose so large a\nproportion as five per cent., or one in twenty, of any species to\npossess an advantageous variation,--only one in twenty of the\nindividuals thus favoured will secure a similarly favoured mate,--for\neach will have nineteen wrong selections offered to him or her, for one\nright one. Only one pair in four hundred will therefore transmit the\nvariation to five per cent. of _their_ offspring, or one in eight\nthousand of the species, and of these only one pair in\na-hundred-and-sixty-thousand will make an advantageous match. Such is\nthe inevitable consequence of leaving any definite result to Chance: and\nhere it is that Natural Selection is found to betray the most fatal of\nall its deficiencies; for, whatever its advocates may say, it is Chance\nand Chance alone upon which it relies. Just because man can and does\nselect the proper mates, is he able to produce by breeding the results\nto which Mr. Darwin appeals as evidence, that Nature having no such\npower of selection, must be able to produce results of which man cannot\neven dream.[201]\n\nNatural Selection is in truth no selection at all, that is just its weak\npoint, which the title conferred upon it serves to hide. What are called\nits products owe no more to it than Wellington owed his generalship to\nthe bullets which did not hit him at Seringapatam. If they are not\ndetermined to a particular development they can attain it only by\nChance.\n\nOf Chance, enough has already been said. It is, however, worth our\nwhile to observe how constantly to the last Mr. Darwin was haunted by\nthe consciousness that this was in reality the factor upon which his\nsystem must depend, and that it could not possibly account for much that\nhe came across in nature. If, as he confessed, the sight of a peacock's\ntail-feather made him sick, it was just because its elaborate beauty, to\nwhich no commensurate advantage can be supposed to attach, forbade the\nnotion that his theory could account for it. So, of another still more\nmarvellous instance in which Nature exhibits artistic power, namely the\nball-and-socket ornament on the wings of the Argus pheasant, he\nwrites:[202]\n\n     No one, I presume, will attribute this shading, which has excited\n     the admiration of many experienced artists, to chance--to the\n     fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring matter. That these\n     ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many\n     successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to\n     produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one\n     of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of\n     chance daubs of paints made by a long succession of young artists,\n     not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n1. Basal portion of secondary wing-feather; nearest body, shewing first\nrudiment of \"ocelli.\"\n\n2. Portion of secondary wing-feather near body, shewing \"elliptic\"\nornaments.\n\n3. Part of secondary wing-feather, shewing developed \"ocelli.\"\n\nFeathers from wing of Argus Pheasant, from Darwin's _Descent of Man_.]\n\nNevertheless, Mr. Darwin proceeds to argue at considerable length that\nan explanation consistent with his theory is favoured by the occurrence\non the same wings of designs exhibiting every stage of gradation from a\nmere spot to the finished ball-and-socket _ocellus_; in the same way as\nthe tail feathers of a peacock advance from a mere sketch to the\ncompleted design. It is not easy, however, to understand in what way\nthis is supposed to solve the difficulty and not vastly to increase it.\nThat a finished artistic effect should be fortuitously produced at all\nwould be incredible enough. That it should be worked up by Chance\nthrough a series of processes, each doing something towards its\ncompletion, is surely not less, but far more inconceivable.\n\nIn such a mode of explanation, however, is exemplified a feature which\nmust not be forgotten in discussing Darwinism,--namely the fatal\nfacility with which seeming arguments can be procured on its behalf. As\nMr. Mivart well remarks:[203] \"The Darwinian theory has the great\nadvantage of only needing for its support the suggestion of some\npossible utility, actual or ancestral, in each case--no difficult task\nfor an ingenious, patient, and accomplished thinker.\" And our _North\nBritish_ Reviewer makes a similar comment: \"The believer who is at\nliberty to invent any imaginary circumstances, will very generally be\nable to conceive some series of transmutations answering his wants.\"\n\nOr if, as in the above instance of the Argus' eyes, a series is actually\nfound, it is even less difficult to take for granted that it can have\nbut one significance; while such assumptions are too frequently\naccepted without hesitation or demur, although it would be no easy task\nto show that they rest upon any solid grounds. When, in addition, either\nMr. Darwin himself or some of his leading partisans has declared that\nsome unverified process has undoubtedly occurred, or that they see no\nreason to doubt its occurrence, or that nothing which we know precludes\nits possibility,--it appears to be widely supposed that something\nsubstantial is thereby added to the scientific evidence, and that the\nsuppositions thus sanctioned may even rank as facts. But however such a\nmethod may avail to secure acceptance for a doctrine, it does nothing\nfor its scientific value. Such a style, as Mr. Mivart says,[204] is\ncalculated to impress only minds too easily dominated, and not prepared\nby special studies accurately to weigh the evidence put before them.\n\nIllustrations of this strange method of procedure are furnished in\nconnexion with various points already mentioned. Thus, as we have seen,\nMr. Darwin attempts to explain the origin of rational speech, by the\nconscious utterance of a significant sound by an unusually wise ape-like\ncreature. In favour of this very large suggestion, Mr. Darwin has\nnothing more substantial to say[205] than that \"it does not appear\naltogether incredible,\" which does not appear to take us very far.[206]\nYet I have seen this described as an \"idyllic scene\" shedding an\nentirely new light on the subject. So again in regard of the evolution\nof the eye.[207] Having summarily enumerated the various stages of\ndevelopment exhibited by this organ as actually existing in various\nanimals, Mr. Darwin goes on to say that when we remember how small the\nnumber of living forms must be in comparison with extinct, and the other\ngradations that may consequently have existed, \"the difficulty ceases to\nbe very great\" in believing that Natural Selection has connected the\nmost rudimentary with the perfect structure. Similarly, as to the\ncell-making instinct of the bee,[208] having postulated four several\nsuppositions for which evidence is not forthcoming, he concludes: \"By\nsuch modification of instincts ... I believe that the hive bee has\nacquired, through natural selection, her inimitable architectural\npowers.\"[209] Similar examples might be multiplied indefinitely.\n\nNot unfrequently the tone of such utterances is more imperious. Thus, of\nthe descent of Man from some animal ancestor Mr. Darwin pronounces[210]\n\"The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken,\" and\nagain[211] \"the possession of exalted mental powers is no insuperable\nobjection to this conclusion\" ... \"It is only [p. 32] our natural\nprejudice which leads us to demur to this conclusion.\" He even goes so\nfar as to declare that his view is forced upon every man who is not\ncontent to assume the mental attitude of a savage.[212]\n\nArgumentation of this character, which he finds common with Darwin to\nother Evolutionists, is judged by de Quatrefages to be one of the\nweakest and most misleading features of their systems.\n\n     Personal conviction [he writes],[213] mere possibility, are offered\n     as proofs, or at least as arguments in favour of the theory. Can we\n     admit their validity? Obviously not. The human mind can conceive\n     many things: is that a reason for accepting them all?... Obviously\n     more serious proofs are needed. After all, save where a\n     contradiction is involved, everything is _possible_.... If\n     adopting, under the shadow of Oken's great name, his principle of\n     the repetition of phenomena, a naturalist should maintain that each\n     of the planets has its own Europe, its England, and its Darwin\n     expounding to the Jovians and Saturnians the origin of species, I\n     do not quite see how one would set about showing him that he was\n     wrong. Unquestionably the thing is _possible_. Are we to draw the\n     conclusion that it is a fact?\n\nAgain,[214] the same distinguished naturalist, having quoted Darwin's\nvery elaborate explanation of a difficulty, remarks:\n     We see how with Darwin, as with his precursors, one hypothesis\n     necessitates another. But can he, at least, by means of these\n     subsidiary theories, these comparisons, these metaphors, account\n     for all the facts? No, he himself honestly confesses more than once\n     that he cannot. It is true that he adds \"I am convinced that the\n     objections have little weight, and the difficulties are not\n     insoluble.\" But is this conviction of his a proof, or even an\n     argument?\n\nM. Blanchard likewise comments vigorously on this mode of argumentation.\nSpeaking of the Mole and Darwin's explanation of its blindness, namely\nthat having taken to living under-ground it lost its eyes through\ndisuse--which he considers a most preposterous supposition,--M Blanchard\ncontinues:[215]\n\n     The realms of fancy are boundless; but the observer who is\n     concerned with realities can only have recourse to the facts of\n     science. Fossil remains discovered in very ancient strata show that\n     the underground animal of present times does not differ from his\n     geological counterpart. The Mole belongs to a very peculiar type,\n     and has no nearer European relatives than the Hedgehog and the\n     Shrew. Can we imagine a common ancestor of Shrews, Hedgehogs, and\n     Moles? On this point Mr. Darwin expresses no opinion,--which should\n     not be, for when confronted by forms clearly differentiated, he is\n     wont to extricate himself from difficulties with matchless\n     facility. The intermediate links, he will say, were doubtless less\n     fitted to live than were the others, and so have disappeared. After\n     _that_ the Evolutionists consider any one quite out of date who\n     does not consider himself entirely satisfied with so felicitous an\n     explanation.\n\nM. de Quatrefages denounces another fatal defect often observable in the\nmethod of proof.\n\n     Mr. Darwin frequently complains that our actual knowledge is\n     incomplete. But instead of discovering in our lack of precise and\n     extensive information a motive for caution, he appears to derive\n     from it only greater daring. Doctrines based on the instability of\n     species have often been combated by geologists and pal\u00e6ontologists.\n     In reply to their objections Darwin devotes a whole chapter to\n     shewing the imperfection of the geological record. \"For my part,\"\n     he concludes, \"I look at the geological record as a history of the\n     world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect; of this\n     history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or\n     three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short\n     chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a\n     few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less\n     different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of\n     life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which\n     falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the\n     difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even\n     disappear.\"\n\n     On my part [continues M. de Quatrefages] I will ask whether such a\n     conclusion is the correct one. No doubt, Darwin is right in\n     refusing to certain naturalists the right to dogmatize on the\n     strength of uncompleted studies, or scanty and isolated\n     observations. Is he therefore entitled to allege as proofs on his\n     own behalf the very gaps of science, appealing to the lost volumes\n     and leaves of Nature's chronicle? Clearly not. But the slightest\n     reflection suffices to recognize that this appeal to the unknown,\n     so frankly evidenced in the above passage, lies at the root of all\n     argumentation analogous to that which I have tried to\n     describe--that of Maillet, Lamarck, and Geoffroy,[216] as well as\n     Darwin. Only the unknown, in sooth, can open the boundless region\n     of speculation, where the possible replaces the actual, and where,\n     despite the widest knowledge and the soundest intelligence, one\n     comes as by a fatality to find a conclusive proof on one's own\n     side, precisely in that of which we profess to know nothing.\n\nSo again, speaking of a certain conclusion of Professor Haeckel's\nconcerning the embryology of lemurs, which MM. Grandidier and Alphonse\nEdwards afterwards proved experimentally to be altogether erroneous, de\nQuatrefages writes:[217]\n\n     Haeckel will perhaps answer that the publication of his book\n     preceded the observation of the French savants. But such a plea\n     itself discloses a method of procedure which is common to the\n     majority of evolutionists, and of which, it must be added, Darwin\n     set the example. When confronted by a question about which nobody\n     knows anything, they appeal precisely to this want of knowledge,\n     and draw arguments from their very ignorance.\n\nIn like manner speaks the Reviewer already cited more than once.\nThus:[218]\n\n     The peculiarities of geographical distribution seem very difficult\n     of explanation on any theory. Darwin calls in alternately winds,\n     tides, birds, beasts, all animated nature, as the diffusers of\n     species, and then a good many of the same agencies as impenetrable\n     barriers.... With these facilities of hypothesis there seems to be\n     no particular reason why many theories should not be true. However\n     an animal may have been produced, it must have been produced\n     somewhere, and it must either have spread very widely or not have\n     spread, and Darwin can give good reasons for both results.\n\nAnd again:[219]\n\n     We are asked to believe all these maybes happening on an enormous\n     scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian \"maybe\" as\n     to the origin of species. The general form of his argument is as\n     follows:--\"All these things may have been, therefore my theory is\n     possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all those\n     hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable.\" There is\n     little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually _have\n     been_.\n\nIn no respect, moreover, have Darwin's followers more closely imitated\ntheir master than in the construction of such hypotheses, which would\nappear to constitute in the eyes of many the most important work of\nScience. Attention has very largely been diverted from Nature as\nactually existing, which seems to be studied more for the light it can\nbe supposed to throw upon evolutionary history, than simply for itself,\nand it seems to be thought that to imagine the mode of an evolutionary\nprocess is equivalent to establishing the facts which that process\nsupposes. By this method lengthy and learned papers are written\nconcerning the transformation of one species into another, which in\nreality do no more than describe in minute detail all the changes which\nmust have taken place, _if_ the said transformation really occurred.\nThat Science is thus benefited, is not the opinion of some at least who\nare well entitled to speak on her behalf, for as the President of the\nLinnean Society recently observed,[220] as one grows older, it becomes\nmore and more apparent that facts alone are of any serious interest, and\nthat speculations however ingenious and attractive are best left to the\nconstructive and destructive energies of the young. So too, a few years\nago, the President of the Microscopical Society complained that interest\nin living creatures is largely supplanted by dead ones.[221]\n\n     We read much [he said] of the animal's organs: we see plates\n     showing that its bristles have been counted, and its muscular\n     fibres traced to the last thread; we have the structure of its\n     tissues analyzed to their very elements; we have long discussions\n     on its title to rank with this group or that; and sometimes even\n     disquisitions on the probable form and habits of some extremely\n     remote, but quite hypothetical, ancestor, who is made to degrade in\n     this way, or to advance in that, or who is credited with one organ\n     or deprived of another, just as the ever-varying necessities of a\n     desperate hypothesis require....\n\nThere is another aspect of the question which must by no means be\noverlooked. It has to be assumed that Natural Selection, or the survival\nof the fittest in the struggle for existence, necessarily tends to the\nbenefit of the _race_ and moreover to its farther development on the\nupward grade, towards a more perfect and more specialized\norganization;--in Mr. Herbert Spencer's words, to progression from a\nrelatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a relatively definite,\ncoherent heterogeneity. But here many questions occur.\n\nIn the first place, a consideration presents itself, which appears to\nfurnish the most formidable of all difficulties in the way of Mr.\nDarwin's hypothesis. How can this struggle for existence be supposed to\nhave any tendency to promote organic development to ever higher and more\nperfect types, in the orderly sequence which has in fact occurred? The\n\"Survival of the fittest\" means only the survival _of the fittest to\nsurvive_,--of such as can find means of living where others cannot.\nUnless it can be shown that increased complexity of organization\nnecessarily brings with it such increased vitality, Natural Selection\ncan do nothing for organic development. If the mere power of living be\nthe only factor in the process, as on Mr. Darwin's showing it is, a man\nis only a more complicated and delicate machine for securing the same\nobject which can equally well, or better, be attained by a mole, a\ncockroach, or a microbe. And who will say that, so far as this\nparticular end is concerned, he is better equipped than creatures which\nall the resources of civilization are powerless to exterminate?\n\nThat practical advantage in the struggle for existence must necessarily\naccompany increased specialization of organs, and thus produce a\n\"higher\" organization, was a prime point of Mr. Darwin's argument,\nthough at the same time he found himself compelled to encumber it with\nqualifications which go very far to neutralize its force; for he had to\nexplain the obvious fact that so many creatures which represent the\nlowest and least specialized forms of life, have survived down to our\nown time. Thus he writes:[222]\n\n     The degree of differentiation and specialization of the parts in\n     organic beings, when arrived at maturity, is the best standard, as\n     yet suggested, of their degree of perfection or highness. As the\n     specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural\n     selection will tend to render the organization of each being more\n     specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but that it\n     may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures\n     fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even\n     degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded\n     beings better fitted for their new walks of life.\n\n     By this fundamental test of victory in the battle of life, as well\n     as by the standard of the specialization of organs, modern forms\n     ought, on the theory of Natural Selection, to stand higher than\n     ancient forms. Is this the case? A large number of pal\u00e6ontologists\n     would answer in the affirmative; and it seems that this answer must\n     be admitted as true, though difficult of proof.\n\nThat is to say, Natural Selection is just as ready to degrade as to\nelevate a creature, according to the actual requirements of the\ncircumstances in which it is placed, and how far progress has been the\nrule, rather than stability or retrogression, is a question for\ngeological history to determine. This we shall have to consider in our\nnext chapter.\n\nIt is likewise obvious that so far as the mere struggle for existence is\nconcerned, a species each of whose individual members is but poorly\nfurnished, may nevertheless flourish unimpaired on the mere strength of\nits fecundity. It is thus, says M. Blanchard,[223] that the lower forms\nof life continue to hold their own despite the enormous ravages to which\nthey are subject. The herring, for example, affords food to all the\nfowls of the air and fish of the sea, over and above the myriads\nannually requisitioned by man. Yet its hosts show no sign of being\nexterminated or even reduced. Much the same is the case of the cod; but\na tribe one individual of which has been known to produce nine million\neggs does not require much in the way of coherent heterogeneity to\nensure its survival.\n\nThus it appears that of itself Darwinism affords no explanation whatever\nof the regular progression of life forms from lower to higher, to which\nthe records of Nature bear witness, and which is the one solid fact\nsuggesting the idea of Evolution.\n\nSuch are some of the reasons which, on purely rational grounds, appear\namply to justify those who decline to pledge their faith to Darwinism,\nin spite of the popularity it enjoys. But what is to be said of the\nphenomena cited as furnishing positive and unimpeachable evidence in its\nfavour, which were mentioned above in our sketch of its main features?\n\nFirst as to the rudimentary, fragmentary, or vestigial organs so common\nin Nature. These, it is said, being of no possible advantage to their\npossessors, and often a serious disadvantage, can be explained only by\nsupposing that they were serviceable in the past to the ancestral race\nwhence these possessors are derived, and have since been superseded by\nother modifications of structure, so as to dwindle away by disuse. This,\nno doubt, seems a very plausible explanation, but it does not follow\nthat we ought immediately to adopt it as a certainty, instead of\nsetting ourselves to examine how it accords with all the facts. Nothing\nis more dangerous and less scientific than to be in a hurry to conclude\nthat everything is certain which seems to ourselves probable, especially\nif it suits a theory of our own. Unfortunately, this law is too\nfrequently more honoured in the breach than the observance. In the\npresent instance, Professor Haeckel himself furnishes an example. He is\nquite sure that the rudimentary structures can have but one\nsignificance, and that they are fatal to the idea of purpose in Nature,\nthe object of his special aversion, and so he has proposed a new term,\n\"Dysteleology,\" to embody this idea, of which he says,[224]\n\n     _Dysteleology, or the theory of purposelessness_ [is] the name I\n     have given to the science of rudimentary organs, of suppressed and\n     degenerated, aimless and inactive, parts of the body; one of the\n     most important and most interesting branches of comparative\n     anatomy, which, when rightly estimated, is alone sufficient to\n     refute the fundamental error of the teleological and dualistic\n     conception of Nature, and to serve as the foundation of the\n     mechanical and monistic conception of the universe.\n\nIt will be sufficient to quote Professor Huxley's remarks upon this\npassage, taken from the very laudatory review he wrote of the work in\nwhich it occurs.[225]\n\n\n     Professor Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name,\n     \"Dysteleology,\" for the study of the \"purposelessnesses\" which are\n     observable in living organisms--such as the multitudinous cases of\n     rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however,\n     that it has often appeared to me that the facts of Dysteleology cut\n     two ways. If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do, that\n     useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral\n     rudiments of toes in the foot of a horse place us in a dilemma.\n     For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in which\n     case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form\n     since the Pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared; or\n     they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no\n     use as arguments against Teleology. A similar, but stronger\n     argument may be based upon the existence of teats, and even\n     functional mammary glands in male mammals.... There can be little\n     doubt that the mammary gland was as apparently useless in the\n     remotest male mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet\n     it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the male\n     organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its\n     dysteleological value is gone.\n\nIn later editions Professor Huxley further observed: \"The recent\ndiscovery of the important part played by the Thyroid gland should be a\nwarning to all speculators about useless organs.\"[226]\n\nIt seems, therefore, the wiser part to refrain from basing any vital\nconclusions upon these organs until we can assure ourselves that our\nknowledge warrants our so doing. As the same Professor Huxley intimated,\nit might be well for pal\u00e6ontologists, and doubtless for biologists\nlikewise,[227] \"To learn a little more carefully that scientific '_ars\nartium_,' the art of saying 'I don't know.'\"\n\nSo again as to the phenomena of embryology. No doubt they are very\nstriking and impressive. That the most highly developed creatures, and\nman himself, should in the first stages of existence exhibit the\ncharacteristics of lower forms, is an exemplification of development no\nless signal than the succession of ascending types witnessed to by the\nrocks. It is not easy to see, however, why it should be taken for\ngranted that this can only signify genetic descent from all such forms,\nand that these embryo animals are engaged in climbing up their\ngenealogical trees. Yet this is usually assumed as a matter of course,\nand any one who ventures to question the validity of such an inference,\nmust be prepared to find himself accused of dogmatizing.\n\nAnd yet, after all, upon what grounds does the assumption rest? That\nsuch a recapitulation of racial experiences forms no essential feature\nof Evolution is sufficiently evident from the case of the vegetable\nworld,--for plants do not climb _their_ genealogical trees, or pass in\nthe seed through a series of botanical phases. And as to animals, since\nthrough all varieties of form, each always arrives at the required term,\nit is obvious that, apart from any archaic associations, and on\nDarwinian principles themselves, these forms must be the best for the\npurpose at each respective stage,--perhaps the only ones by which the\nterm could be reached. It is therefore, to say the least, quite\nconceivable, that we have here the whole explanation and need go no\nfurther.\n\nIn certain instances this obvious consideration is strikingly\nillustrated. Thus the salamander, an Amphibian of the newt family,\nbrings forth its young in adult condition without gills.[228] But\npreviously to birth they have gills relatively large. The experiment\nhaving been tried of bringing some of them forth by artificial means\nbefore their time, and placing them in water, the first thing they did\nwas to cast off these big gills, which were speedily replaced by new\nones of much smaller size, and evidently better suited for the work\nrequired, as they lasted as long as a fortnight.\n\nHere, in the first place, it is quite impossible to suppose that the\nlarge gills would continue to appear unless they were of advantage\nduring the period of gestation. It is equally evident that it is not\nfrom a previous aquatic condition that they are inherited, for in such a\ncondition they are useless. Finally, as Mr. Mivart observes, the new\ngills, suitable for unwonted conditions, were developed \"not in a\nstruggle for existence against rivals, but directly and spontaneously\nfrom the innate nature of the animal.\"\n\nThis view of the matter commended itself on mature consideration to so\nardent an evolutionist as Carl Vogt, with whom we may couple M. de\nQuatrefages, who cites his words with approval as follows:[229]\n\n     It has been laid down as a fundamental law of biogenesis that\n     ontogeny (the development of the individual) and phylogeny (that of\n     the race) must exactly correspond.... This law which I long held as\n     well founded is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of\n     embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own\n     conditions suitable to themselves, very different from those of\n     adults.\n\n\"In a word,\" M. de Quatrefages continues, \"the learned Genevan professor\nrightly considers that, 'The ontogenesis of all organic beings without\nexception, is the normal result of all the various influences which\noperate upon such beings.'\"\n\nBut it must, moreover, be noted that the story which embryology can be\nmade to tell is by no means so plain as we might easily be led to\nsuppose.\n\nThus, although snakes are held to be descended from lizards, and some of\nthem have rudimentary legs even in the adult stage, others have no trace\nof limbs even in the egg, while they _have_ vestiges of gills, and thus\nwould seem to be visibly linked to ancient water-dwelling ancestors, and\nnot to far more recent land-dwellers. Again;[230] Amphibians (frogs,\nnewts and the like) agree in some respects, as to the development of the\ngerm, with mammals, differing in the same respects from reptiles and\nbirds. But reptiles and birds are supposed to be a more recent\ndevelopment than Amphibia, and therefore should intervene between them\nand mammals on the genealogical tree. Moreover the eggs of one group of\nAmphibians are found to exhibit some remarkable resemblances to those of\nreptiles and birds, from which it would thus appear to have derived\nthem, although on other grounds it is declared to be of an older stock\nthan theirs. Most frogs, toads, and newts come out of the egg as\ntadpoles, furnished with gills and so breathing in water. This should\nsignify that these creatures are descended from fish or fishlike\nancestors. But one frog (_Rana opisthodon_) is never a tadpole even in\nthe egg, from which he gets out by means of a special opener on his\nsnout which he has somehow acquired. On the other hand certain\nnewts[231] breed as tadpoles instead of in their mature form, which\nlooks like an attempt to climb down the tree instead of up.\n\nIt will be remembered that the latter phrase was that used by Professor\nMilnes Marshall. Yet even he expressed himself strongly concerning the\nexaggerations of Professor Haeckel on this subject. In his review of\nHaeckel's _Anthropogenie_,[232] after observing that many descriptions\nof human embryology have been based on observations of dogs, pigs,\nrabbits, or even chickens and dogfish, he thus continued regarding the\nbook before him:\n\n     A student who relied on Professor Haeckel's description, would\n     obtain an entirely erroneous idea of the development of the human\n     embryo.... It is a matter for great regret that a book of 900\n     pages, bearing such a title, should be allowed to appear, in which\n     the account of the actual development of the human embryo is so\n     inadequate or even erroneous.\n\nFar more fundamental, however, is a remark of Mr. Mivart's, that if, as\nDarwinians say, the development of the individual is an epitome of that\nof the species, the latter must like the former be due to the action of\ndefinite innate laws unconsciously carrying out definite preordained\nends and purposes. For although cells or embryos may be\nindistinguishable from one another, and may appear to us identical in\nconstitution, their differences are absolute. Each is determined to be\none sort of animal and no other, and can live at all only on condition\nof developing towards the prescribed form.--Therefore, whatever evidence\nthe embryonic forms may be supposed to afford in support of Evolution,\nthey have nothing in common with the haphazard process of Natural\nSelection.\n\nAnd here again Professor Huxley found himself obliged to enter his\n_caveat_, and to intimate his opinion that some of his friends were\ninclined to build too confidently upon this foundation. As his\nbiographer Professor Weldon writes in the _Dictionary of National\nBiography_:\n\n     Darwin had suggested an interpretation of the facts of embryology\n     which led to the hope that a fuller knowledge of development might\n     reveal the history of all the great groups of animals at least in\n     its main outlines. This hope was of service as a stimulus to\n     research, but the attempt to interpret the phenomena observed led\n     to speculations which were often fanciful and always incapable of\n     verification. Huxley was keenly sensible of the danger attending\n     the use of a hypothetical explanation, leading to conclusions which\n     cannot be experimentally tested, and he carefully avoided it.... In\n     the preface to the _Manual of the Comparative Anatomy of\n     Invertebrated Animals_, he says: \"I have abstained from discussing\n     questions of \u00e6tiology,[233] not because I underestimate their\n     importance, or am insensible to the interest of the great problem\n     of Evolution, but because, to my mind, the growing tendency to mix\n     up \u00e6tiological speculations with morphological generalizations\n     will, if unchecked, throw Biology into confusion.\"\n\nAccordingly, Huxley himself based his faith in Evolution on\npal\u00e6ontological evidence, and attempted to decide the precise course it\nhad followed only \"in the few cases where the evidence seemed to him\nsufficiently complete.\" This line of enquiry we have still to pursue,\nbut meanwhile, it is evident that the phenomena we have been\nconsidering, failing to meet the approval of so thorough-going an\nEvolutionist as he undoubtedly was, cannot be said to furnish convincing\nscientific evidence in favour of Darwinism.\n\nIt will be asked how it comes to pass, if the Darwinian system really\nlies open to so many objections, that it occupies so large a place in\nscientific estimation. To this we must reply that, in spite of its great\nname, its success has throughout been popular rather than truly\nscientific, and that as time went on it has lost ground among the class\nof men best qualified to judge. Evolutionists there are in plenty,--but\nvery few genuine Darwinists, and amongst these can by no means be\nreckoned all who adopt the title, for not a few of them--as Romanes and\nWeismann--profess doctrines which cannot be reconciled with those of\nDarwin himself. Meanwhile, an increasing volume of scientific opinion\nsets definitely against Darwinism as an adequate explanation of the\nphilosophy of life, and falls into the view expressed long ago by\nCharles Robin[234] who, as a freethinker, had no antecedent objections\nagainst it, \"Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of\nprobabilities without proof, and of attractive explanations without\ndemonstration.\"\n\nIt would be tedious to cite testimonies at length, but, in addition to\nM. de Quatrefages who has made a full and careful study of the whole\nquestion, [_Charles Darwin et ses pr\u00e9curseurs Fran\u00e7ais_, and _Les Emules\nde Darwin_] may be mentioned such continental scholars as Blanchard [_La\nvie des \u00eatres anim\u00e9s_], Wigand [_Der Darwinismus und die\nNaturforschung_, etc.], Wolff [_Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik der darwinschen\nLehre_], Hamann [_Entwicklungslehre und Darwinismus_], Pauly [_Wahres\nund Falsches an Darwins Lehre_], Driesch [_Biologisches Zentralblatt_,\n1896 and 1902], Plate [_Bedeutung und Tragweite des Darwinschen\nSelektionsprincip_], Hertwig [_Address to Naturalist Congress_,\n_Aachen_, 1900], Heer [_Urwelt der Schweiz_], K\u00f6lliker [_Ueber die\ndarwin'sche Sch\u00f6pfungstheorie_], Eimer [_Entstehung der Arten_], Von\nHartmann [_Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus_], Schilde\n[_Antidarwinistisches im Ausland_], Du Bois-Reymond [_Conference_,\nAugust 2, 1881, etc.], Virchow [_Freiheit der Wissenschaft_, etc.],\nN\u00e4geli [_Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre_],\nSchaafhausen [_Ueber die anthropologischen Fragen_], Fechner [_Ideen zur\nSch\u00f6pfungs-und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen_], Jakob [_Der\nMensch_, etc.], Diebolder [_Darwins Grundprinzip_, etc.], Huber [_Die\nLehre Darwins kritisch betrachtet_], Joseph Ranke, and Von Bauer,--all\nof whom either reject Darwinism altogether, or admit it only with fatal\nreservations.\n\nSpecial weight must attach to the adverse verdict of M. Fabre, styled by\nDarwin himself \"that inimitable observer,\" who declares that he cannot\nreconcile the theory with the facts he encounters.[235]\n\nIt must be sufficient to quote one or two of our own countrymen, whose\nutterances will enable us to form an opinion as to the true scientific\nstatus of the doctrine.\n\nWe may begin with Huxley, the great popular champion of Darwinism, who\ndid more than any other man to spread the new doctrine. Yet, strange to\nsay, he seems never to have really accepted its fundamental tenet\nhimself, always appearing very shy of Natural Selection, and carefully\nabstaining from committing himself to any responsibility for it. Thus in\nhis treatise on _Man's Place in Nature_, he thus explains his position\nin its regard:\n\n     Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent\n     with any biological fact; on the contrary, if admitted, the facts\n     of Development, of Comparative Anatomy, of Geographical\n     Distribution, and of Pal\u00e6ontology, become connected together, and\n     exhibit a meaning such as they never possessed before; and I, for\n     one, am firmly convinced, that if not precisely true, that\n     hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth as, for\n     example, the Copernican hypothesis was to the true theory of the\n     planetary motions. But for all this, our acceptance of the\n     Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the\n     chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and\n     plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock\n     are fertile with one another, the link will be wanting. For, so\n     long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do\n     all that is required of it to produce natural species.\n\nThis missing link, like various others, has never been supplied, and in\nconsequence Professor Huxley never abandoned his attitude of reserve. On\nthe contrary, when, in 1880, he delivered an address to celebrate \"the\nComing of Age of the _Origin of Species_\" he discharged the task without\nonce mentioning Natural Selection, which is to that work as the Prince\nof Denmark is to _Hamlet_.\n\nBut there is one passage in the said address, which deserves to be\nspecially remembered:\n\n     History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to\n     begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now\n     stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty\n     years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the\n     present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of\n     the _Origin of Species_, with as little reflection, and it may be\n     with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries,\n     twenty years ago, rejected them.\n\nIn 1886, Professor Romanes pronounced as follows:[236]\n\n\"At present it would be impossible to find any working naturalist who\nsupposes that survival of the fittest is competent to explain all the\nphenomena of species-formation.\"\n\nAs to the actual position now occupied in Scientific opinion by Mr.\nDarwin's hypotheses, we may content ourselves with the declaration of\nProfessor S. H. Vines in his Presidential address to the Linnean\nSociety, May 24, 1902.\n\n     1. It is established that Natural Selection, though it may have\n     perpetuated species, cannot have originated any.\n\n     2. It is still a mystery why Evolution should tend from the lower\n     to the higher, from simple to complex organisms.\n\n     3. The facts seem to admit of no other interpretation than that\n     variation is not [as Darwin supposed] indeterminate, but that there\n     is in living matter an inherent determination in favour of\n     variation in the higher direction.\n\nThat is to say, Darwin's _Origin of Species_ does not explain the Origin\nof Species; and as to the laws which govern Evolution we can be sure\nonly that they are not those which he assigned.\n\nIn like manner, Sir Oliver Lodge pronounces:[237]\n\n     Take the origin of species by the persistence of favourable\n     variations; how is the appearance of these same favourable\n     variations accounted for? Except by artificial selection not at\n     all. Given their appearance, their development by struggle and\n     inheritance and survival can be explained; but that they arose\n     spontaneously, by random changes without purpose, is an assertion\n     which cannot be made.\n\nWe are thus in a position to form our own judgment as to the claim made\non behalf of Mr. Darwin, with which we started this chapter--namely,\nthat he has eliminated all mystery from the organic world by the\ndiscovery of natural mechanical laws by which all its operations are\ngoverned. It is, indeed, difficult to understand how Darwinists\nthemselves can suppose their system to make any such claim, for, as M.\nPaul Vignon truly observes,[238] \"La science darwinnienne s'imaginait\navoir triomph\u00e9 du Sphinx, alors qu'elle avait simplement d\u00e9compos\u00e9 le\nprobl\u00e8me dans une monnaie d'\u00e9nigmes moins r\u00e9barbatives en apparence.\" As\nhas been said, it is far more on account of the vast consequences\nprofessedly based upon it, as a sure foundation stone, than for its own\nsake, that it has seemed advisable to devote so much attention to the\nstudy of Darwinism, quite apart from which the whole question of organic\nEvolution still demands consideration.\n\nIt seems far more just to conclude with M. Fabre:[239]\n\n     Let us acknowledge that in truth we know nothing about anything, so\n     far as ultimate truths are concerned. Scientifically considered\n     nature is a riddle to which human curiosity can find no answer.\n     Hypothesis follows hypothesis, the ruins of theories are piled one\n     on another, but truth ever escapes us. To learn how to remain in\n     ignorance may well be the final lesson of wisdom.[240]\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\nTHE FACTS OF EVOLUTION\n\n\nLeaving the field of speculation and \"\u00e6tiology,\" we have now to enquire,\nnot to what causes organic Evolution may be attributable, but how far it\ncan be shewn to have actually occurred. This can be learnt only from the\nhistory of life upon earth as disclosed by the evidence of pal\u00e6ontology,\nor the geological record, and we are thus brought to the investigation\nof that evidence, by which alone, as Professor Huxley agrees, can the\ntruth about Evolution be scientifically or satisfactorily established.\nIn his address recently mentioned on occasion of the twenty-first\nbirthday of the _Origin of Species_, having spoken of various advances\nof our knowledge, as in comparative anatomy and embryology, which had\nhelped to win acceptance for transformist doctrines, he thus continued:\n\n     But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove\n     dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence\n     in favour of evolution can be furnished only by pal\u00e6ontology. The\n     geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must,\n     when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a\n     negative answer; if evolution has taken place, there will its mark\n     be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.\n\nThis is common sense. Evolution can claim to be a scientific truth, only\nso far as clear evidence is forthcoming that Evolution there has been.\nIf the geological record be sufficiently complete to prove or disprove\nits claims, the question is settled for ever. If, on the other hand, the\nrecord be not complete enough for a conclusive verdict, it is, at least,\nhard to understand the grounds of such a statement as that the doctrine\nof Evolution has long since passed beyond the stage of discussion among\nscientific thinkers;[241] or that of Professor Marsh, that to doubt\nEvolution is to doubt Science; or of Professor Huxley himself[242]--\"So\nfar as the animal world is concerned, Evolution is no longer a\nspeculation, but a matter of historical fact.\"\n\nThis historical enquiry is accordingly all-important, and it is one\nwhich should be easy to undertake without any prepossessions, for it is\nhard to see upon what _\u00e0 priori_ grounds these could rest. That there\nhas been Evolution in one sense of the term is obvious,--that is to say,\ndevelopment of organic types from lower to higher forms, from the\nsea-weed or fungus to the oak or the rose, from the star-fish or the\ncoral-insect, to the eagle or to man. The question is, not whether there\nhas been such a progressive succession of forms, but whether one form\nhas proceeded from another _genetically_, being produced in the same\nmanner as individuals of a species now are. That this has been the case,\nas Professor Huxley tells us in the same address, is the cornerstone of\nevolutionary teaching. He appears indeed to restrict Evolution within\nthe limits of classes and groups, but such restriction is so contrary to\nall his principles that the words which seem to imply it can scarcely be\ntaken as having any definite significance. Should the appearance of\ndifferent classes and groups require to be severally accounted for, we\nshould be landed back in the system of separate creations against which\nhe is never tired of inveighing.\n\n     The fundamental doctrine of all forms of the theory of evolution\n     applied to biology [he says] is that the innumerable species,\n     genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is\n     peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group,\n     from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of\n     descent.\n\nAnd, holding as he does that pal\u00e6ontology furnishes the necessary\nevidence, he thus continues:\n\n     And, in the view of the facts of geology, it follows that all\n     living animals and plants are the lineal descendants of those which\n     lived long before the Silurian epoch.\n\nHere is a plain issue, and one, as has been said, to be discussed\nwithout prejudice. That the innumerable forms of organic life should\nthus have been genetically derived one from another, is no more\ndifficult to conceive than that they should have come into existence at\nall. Moreover, it appears to our minds almost a first principle that\nnatural law must suffice to account for the phenomena of nature from\nbeginning to end, and that any system is self-condemned which finds\nanywhere in these phenomena evidence of a non-natural, or supernatural,\ninterposition. Has not such a theologian as Suarez, following St.\nAugustine, laid it down as an axiom[243] that God does not directly\ninterfere with the operations of Nature, when He can effect His purposes\nthrough natural causes? Undoubtedly, too, it is difficult for our minds\nto imagine in what way, except through genetic evolution, the successive\nproduction of more and more developed types could be effected.\n\nBut, as has before been observed, what seems to us probable is not\ntherefore proved to be true. What we want are facts, and by facts we\nmust be ready to abide. At the same time, it is not very easy to\nunderstand the supreme importance which evolutionists generally appear\nto attach to the descent of all living creatures from some _one_\noriginal, and their abhorrence of the idea that the power, whatever it\nwas, which first produced life, may have operated repeatedly, at\ndifferent epochs, to repeat the production. It seems to be assumed that\nthis must imply \"miracle\" and interruption of the continuity of Nature,\nto admit which is irrational and unscientific. But since life did\nunquestionably once originate somehow, which Science makes no attempt to\ndeny, why should it be so improper to suppose that it originated more\nthan once, at various times and in various forms, and that,\nconsequently, genetic descent with modification, or \"Evolution,\" is not\nthe explanation of typic development? As Sir J. W. Dawson writes[244]\nconcerning the oyster tribe, whereof two species are found in the Coal\nMeasures (one European and the other American), and a continuous\nsuccession of species ever since:\n\n     All these species may have proceeded from one origin, by descent\n     with modification, or, on the other hand, the same causes which led\n     to their origination in the Carboniferous may have operated again\n     and again.\n\nIt must, however, be remembered that, if the theory of genetic descent\nwith accumulation of minute modifications be the true explanation of the\nproduction of new forms, it necessarily follows, that could a complete\nrecord be forthcoming of the ancestry of any actual species, there would\nbe found in that pedigree no distinction of species or genera, for no\nsharply marked lines of limitation would be discoverable. It would be\nlike the case of a man who had been photographed every hour of his life\nfrom birth to old age;--immense though the difference might be between\nthe two extremes, the gradations of change would at all points pass as\nimperceptibly into one another as do the phases of the moon. This\nconsideration is both fundamental and obvious, yet it would seem to be\nalmost universally ignored. It appears to be thought that, in order to\ndemonstrate the fact of evolution, all that is needed is to find a form\nhere and there, in some sense intermediate between others,--like the\nreptilian birds already mentioned. This would imply that the course of\nEvolution must be like that of an army, making long marches from point\nto point, and traceable only by the remains of its camp-fires: whereas\nit should be as that of a glacier continuously creeping on, and leaving\nits tracks at one point as much as another. What are wanted, therefore,\nas evidence for Evolution, are not isolated specific forms uniting some\ncharacteristics of those which they are supposed to connect,--as\nNelson's men-of-war form a stepping-stone between the vessels of the\nNorsemen and the ironclads of the present day,--but a series sufficient\nto show, or at least to indicate, that all changes have been gradual and\ninsensible, without the introduction at any point of a new element. To\npursue the illustration, such a new element would be gunpowder or steam\nin the evolution of the battle-ship, for by no mere development could\nbows or javelins produce a cannon, or sailing ships a steamboat.\n\nTherefore, in proportion as the geological record approaches\ncompleteness, its testimony,--if it is to be in favour of\nEvolution--must tend more and more in this direction, and unless, in\nsome instance at least, clear evidence be discoverable of the melting of\none form into another, it cannot possibly be said that we have\nsufficient proof that such a process ever occurred. Mere graduated\nresemblance of isolated forms does not necessarily imply such\ntransmutation, as we see for example in the methodical progression of\nshape, exhibited by various crystals, and even more remarkably in the\naffinities which we can recognize among what we know as elementary\nsubstances.\n\nThere is another important point to be borne in mind. According to the\nteaching of Evolutionists such as Darwin or Haeckel,[245] every Species\nhas originated from a single ancestor,--or, as they should rather say,\nfrom a single pair.\n\nIf this were so, it would necessarily follow that every new form,\noriginating in some particular spot of earth, would very gradually\nspread thence to other regions, fighting its way along. As Mr. Darwin\nacknowledges,[246] \"The development by this means (i.e. Natural\nSelection) of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one\nprogenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the\nprogenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.\"\n\nOf this gradual spread of new types there should, at least in some\ncases, be some pal\u00e6ontological evidence.\n\nIt is likewise by no means easy to understand how species thus generated\ncould stand solitary and isolated from kindred forms in the records of\nthe earth. The pair of individuals which started a new persistent\ngroup,--its members all stamped with the same specific characters, while\nall around were in a state of flux and divergence,--differed from their\nimmediate ancestors, as we have seen, only infinitesimally. They can\nhave differed no more from many of their contemporaries, for all the\nlines of descent must ramify afresh in each generation, and so form a\nweb rather than anything like a line. It is not very easy to understand\nhow a pair here and there struck root and founded a species, while the\nthousands which jostled them round about failed to do so, for the others\nwhich survived longest must be supposed to have resembled them most\nnearly, and therefore to have participated in their advantages. At\nleast, we should expect to find around them the d\u00e9bris of the multitude\nthey vanquished in the struggle for existence.\n\nWe are told, moreover, that, with hardly an exception, the organic forms\nfound in a fossil state must be supposed to be the last of their\nspecial line of development, which terminated in them; so that neither\ncan they be claimed as the direct ancestors of any other forms, fossil\nor living, nor can any others which are actually known be claimed as\ntheir progenitors. The genealogies supplied for almost all known\nspecies, extinct or existing, are admittedly conjectural, and as in the\nmost famous instance of all, namely the supposed common ancestor of\nsimians and men, the links are persistently \"missing.\" Thus M. de\nQuatrefages, speaking of the human pedigree as set forth by Professor\nHaeckel, writes thus:[247]\n\n     All species, existing or extinct, are said to have been preceded by\n     _ancestral forms_ which have disappeared without leaving the\n     slightest vestige behind them. The _amphioxus_ itself, which more\n     than any other realizes the type of the group it represents, was\n     preceded, according to Haeckel, by the _provertebrate_, which no\n     man has ever seen, but of which, nevertheless, the Jena professor\n     gives us a figure, and describes the anatomy.\n\nThus the number of forms postulated by the theory of genetic Evolution,\nmust have been enormous beyond conception, in comparison with those\nbelonging to the numerically insignificant groups which formed the mere\nextremities of branches on the genealogical tree.\n\nThis being premised, we must ask what Geology has to tell us on the\nsubject, and it will be well to begin by briefly recalling the main\nfeatures of the geological record.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe stratified rocks comprising the crust of the earth, in which fossil\nplants and animals are found embedded, have evidently been formed at\nsuccessive periods, chiefly by the agency of water, each formation\nhaving begun as a sediment like the mud or ooze at the bottom of our\noceans and seas. Geological investigation has proved that the\nchronological order of the strata thus deposited can be satisfactorily\ndetermined, and they are found to divide themselves, in respect of the\norganisms they contain, into three great series, lying above the _Azoic_\n(or lifeless) rocks, older than them all.\n\nThese series, beginning from the bottom, in which order we shall have to\ntrace their history, are most conveniently named _Primary_, _Secondary_,\nand _Tertiary_, otherwise termed respectively, _Paloeozoic_ (\"ancient\nlife\"), _Mesozoic_ (\"middle life\"), and _Kainozoic_ (\"recent life\").\nEach of these again, contains various formations, or as we may call them\nvolumes of its chronicle, each of which has its fixed place in order of\nsequence.\n\nThus, always proceeding from below upwards, in the _Primary_ series,\ncommencing with the _Laurentian_, we find successively the _Huronian_,\n_Cambrian_, _Silurian_, _Devonian_ or _Old Red Sandstone_,\n_Carboniferous_, and _Permian_.\n\nIn the _Secondary_, the lowest formation is the _Triassic_ or _New Red\nSandstone_, followed by the _Jurassic_ or _Oolite_, and the _Cretaceous_\nor _Chalk_.\n\nFinally the _Tertiary_ has three main divisions; the _Eocene_, or \"dawn\nof the recent,\" _Miocene_, or \"less recent,\" and _Pliocene_, or \"more\nrecent.\"\n\nAbove these comes the series now in progress, variously called,\n_Quaternary_, _Post-Tertiary_, and _Pleistocene_, or \"most recent.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt seems advisable to begin our investigation with the vegetable\nkingdom, as its classification being comparatively simple, the essential\npoints of its development are easily followed. We cannot do better than\nstart with the summary of its main divisions furnished by Mr.\nCarruthers.[248]\n\n     The vegetable kingdom is divided into sections, according to the\n     simplicity or complexity of structure. Associated with plants of\n     simple structure we find, as a rule, more elementary organs of\n     reproduction. Linnaeus made two great divisions, of flowering\n     (_Phanerogams_) and flowerless plants (_Cryptogams_).... The higher\n     group have flowers, with their stamens and pistils, which produce\n     seeds, while the lower group are without flowers and bear spores,\n     which are much simpler bodies than seeds. There are seven main\n     groups of spore-bearers--the _alg\u00e6_ or water-weeds; the _fungi_ or\n     mushroom family; the _lichens_, which cover old walls and rocks\n     with patches of coloured vegetation; the _mosses_ with their green\n     leaves and urn-shaped fruit; the _ferns_ with their large and\n     usually much-divided leaves, on the back or edges of which the\n     spores are borne; the _horsetails_, found in wet places, having\n     jointed hollow stems and spores produced in little cones; and the\n     _club-mosses_, upright or creeping leafy plants found on our\n     mountains. These seven groups may be arranged in two divisions,\n     according to the tissues of which they are formed. In the first\n     four the whole plant is composed of _cells_, while in the last\n     three a firm _vascular skeleton_ is present. These characters are\n     of great importance to the student of fossil plants.... The\n     flowering plants are more complex in their structure, and in their\n     organs of reproduction. The lowest group of these plants is the\n     _Gymnosperms_, or naked-seeded plants, like our yews and pines. The\n     other flowering plants (_Angiosperms_) have their seeds in a closed\n     fruit. These are divided into two sections from characters derived\n     from the embryo plant in the seed, depending on whether this minute\n     plant has one seed-leaf (_cotyledon_) or two, and so we have\n     _Monocotyledons_ and _Dicotyledons_. The higher group, or\n     dicotyledons, have been arranged into three divisions, according to\n     the complexity of the flower. In one large group (_Apetalae_) the\n     pistil and stamens are not surrounded by petals, e.g. in the oak\n     and the stinging nettle: superior to them are the plants\n     (_Monopetalae_) in which the petals form a cup, as the\n     blue-bell[249] and the gentian, while the highest group\n     (_Polypetalae_) have all the petals separate, as the buttercups and\n     roses.[250]\n\nIt is most important to recollect that on evolutionary principles the\nfirst representatives of any such classes--and the same holds of animals\nas well--must have been generalized forms, representing the type in the\nrough, or, in Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase, exhibiting by comparison\nwith their successors indefinite incoherent homogeneity, as contrasted\nwith definite coherent heterogeneity. They should bear the same sort of\nrelation to the finished articles worked up by Evolution as did the\nfirst bone-shaker bicycle to our latest patterns, or the news-sheets of\nCromwell's time to the _Times_ or _Graphic_ of to-day. On this, as we\nsaw in the last chapter, Mr. Darwin strongly insists, confessing at the\nsame time that the Geological record alone can establish such progress\nas a fact.\n\nHow these various classes of plants appear actually to have come upon\nthe scene, Mr. Carruthers relates both in the paper from which we have\njust quoted, and at greater length in the address which he delivered as\nPresident of the Geologists' Association,[251] to the following effect.\n\nIn the first place, he declares that although the geological record, at\nleast as known to us, is very imperfect, and represents only an\ninsignificant fragment of plant-history,\n\n     There is a large series of plant-remains completely and accurately\n     known which supply a fair representation of the great events of\n     plant-life that have taken place on the earth since Pal\u00e6ozoic\n     times. And these are more than sufficient to establish or destroy\n     this hypothesis [of genetic evolution] by their testimony.\n\nThere is--he goes on to say--indirect evidence of the existence of\nvegetable life, long before we find any actual remains. Such indirect\nevidence is afforded in the first place by the abundance during this\nperiod of animal life, needing plants for its sustenance, and secondly\nby the enormous quantity of carbon in the rocks, which must have been\nsecreted from the atmosphere by vegetable tissues. There are also\ncertain surface marks or impressions occasionally to be found, which are\nprobably due to plants of a soft and perishable character like the\ncellular cryptogams, and which although extremely vague and undefined,\nat least do not contradict the evolutionist, who regards them as\nevidence that the _Alg\u00e6_ were, as according to him they ought to have\nbeen, the primeval plants. Mr. Carruthers adds a caution however, which\ncan find its application in other instances as well:\n\n     While making this admission in relation to the vegetation of these\n     older rocks, I must protest against the practice of completing the\n     record of life forms, by filling in particular groups without any\n     authority except the writer's impression of an adopted hypothesis,\n     and then basing arguments on these assumptions in support of the\n     hypothesis which created them. So completely has\n\nVEGETABLE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n               | Post Tertiary.|                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n   Tertiary.  {| Pliocene.     |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Miocene.      |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Eocene.       |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n   Secondary. {| Chalk.        | Dicotyledons (Apetal\u00e6, Polypetal\u00e6, |\n              {|               |\u00a0  Sympetal\u00e6).                      |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Oolite.       |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Trias.        |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n               |               |                                    |\n              {| Permian.      |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Carboniferous.| Monocotyledons.                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {|               |                                    |\n              {| Devonian, or  | Clubmosses, Horsetails, Ferns,     |\n              {| Old Red       |   Gymnosperms.                     |\n              {| Sandstone.    |                                    |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n   Primary.   {| Silurian.     | } Cellular Cryptogams.             |\n              {| Cambrian.     | }                                  |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n              {| Huronian.     | } Indications of Plants,           |\n              {| Laurentian.   | }   not determinable.              |\n               +===================+================================+\n               | AZOIC.        |                                    |\n\n     phylogenetic [or racial] evolution become the creed of some leading\n     naturalists that they unwittingly proceed in this manifestly\n     unphilosophical method. But it is a first axiom, though one often\n     forgotten, in this as in every scientific enquiry, that no step can\n     be made in advance which is not based on fact.\n\nAfter this initial stage, the story becomes much clearer, and at the\nsame time less easy to reconcile with evolutionary requirements.\n\nInstead of making their appearance singly and successively, and passing\nimperceptibly one into another, all three groups of Vascular Cryptogams,\nand the Gymnosperms into the bargain, come on the stage together, in the\nDevonian strata; and Monocotyledons in the lower Carboniferous\nimmediately following. There is no trace whatever of the development of\nany of these forms from the earlier cellular cryptogams:\n\n     But [says Mr. Carruthers] the evolution of the Vascular Cryptogams,\n     and the Phanerogams, from the green seaweeds, through the\n     liverworts and mosses, if it took place, must have been carried on\n     through a long succession of ages, and by an innumerable series of\n     advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the\n     early water forms or of the later and still more numerous dry-land\n     forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the\n     fucoids in the Llandovery rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular\n     organisms elsewhere, were, at least, fitted to preserve _some_\n     record of the necessarily rich floras, if they existed, which\n     through immense ages, led by minute steps to the Conifer\n     [_Gymnosperm_] and Monocotyledon of these Pal\u00e6ozoic Rocks.\n\n     Further, these earliest plants are not generalized forms of the\n     various tribes to which they belong, but they are as highly\n     specialized as any subsequent representatives of the particular\n     group to which they belong, and wherever they differ from later\n     plants, it is in the possession of a more perfect organization.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom all which facts Mr. Carruthers thus argues:\n\n     The complete absence of intermediate forms, and the sudden and\n     contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated\n     groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any\n     countenance from the plant-record of these ancient rocks. The whole\n     evidence is against evolution, and there is none for it.[252]\n\nDicotyledons furnish evidence of especial value. On account of their\nhigher organization, they are easily distinguished from both\nMonocotyledons and Gymnosperms; and they present features which clearly\ndifferentiate them amongst themselves. They did not make their entry\ntill after a long interval--and their remains are therefore to be found\nin strata comparatively recent and better known to us than those of the\nolder rocks. It is in the Chalk, the newest of the Secondary or Mesozoic\nformations, that they first exhibit themselves, and they do it in the\nsame fashion as their predecessors.\n\nWhen the Dicotyledons appear in the upper cretaceous beds,\nrepresentatives of the three great groups [_Apetal\u00e6_, _Monopetal\u00e6_,\n_Polypetal\u00e6_] appear together in the same deposit. Moreover, these\ndivisions are represented, not by generalized types, but by\ndifferentiated forms, which, during the intervening epochs, have not\ndeveloped even into higher generic groups.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd, here again, there is no vestige of intermediate species, linking\ndicotyledonous plants with other types.\n\n     No trace of a plant belonging to this great division has yet been\n     detected in any earlier stratum [than the upper chalk]. There is no\n     evidence whatever for Haeckel's statement that the _Apetal\u00e6_\n     probably existed in the Triassic and Jurassic periods.... It cannot\n     be doubted that the conditions favourable to the preservation of\n     Monocotyledons and Equisetums would have secured the preservation\n     of some of the _Apetal\u00e6_, had they existed. This absence can be\n     accounted for only on the supposition that they formed no part of\n     the then existing vegetation. And in the deposits older than the\n     Trias, or in any subsequent deposits, no intermediate form has been\n     detected,--no Gymnosperm or Monocotyledon which exhibits in any\n     point of its structure a modification towards the more highly\n     organized Dicotyledon.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNor, on the same authority, is this all.\n\n     It is equally important in its bearing on the hypothesis of genetic\n     evolution that the generic groups above named have persisted from\n     the first known appearance of Dicotyledons, throughout the whole of\n     the intervening ages, and still hold their places unchanged among\n     the existing forms of vegetation. The persistence of generic and\n     specific types, and the certain knowledge we possess of the life of\n     many existing species of Phanerogams and Cryptogams which have come\n     down through the Glacial Epoch, have not been sufficiently\n     considered in their bearing on the hypothesis.\n\nWe have already seen something of an example which illustrates this\npoint in a remarkable manner,--that of _Salix polaris_, the willow which\nhas so obstinately preserved its specific identity amid great stress of\ncircumstances. It belongs to a very variable genus--one in which if\nanywhere evidence of genetic development might be looked for. Yet it is\nfound that since a period prior to the great Ice Age, or Glacial epoch,\nit has remained absolutely unchanged. At such a rate, we cannot but ask,\nhow long would Evolution take to get back to the generalized type-form,\nor common ancestor, of the genus _Salix_, and then to that of the Order\n_Salicineae_, which includes poplars as well as willows. \"The Ordinal\nform, if it ever existed, must necessarily be much older than the period\nof the upper Cretaceous rocks, that is than the period to which the\nearliest known Dicotyledons belong.\"\n\nAnd it is obvious that when we had got back to the parental stock of the\nwillow tribe, we should still, as evolutionists, be separated by a gulf\nstill vastly greater from the common ancestor of all Dicotyledons, of\noaks, apple-trees, primroses, and daisies no less than of willows and\npoplars.\n\nThe significance of all these various facts is thus summed up:\n\n     The whole evidence supplied by fossil plants is, then, opposed to\n     the hypothesis of genetic evolution, and especially the sudden and\n     simultaneous appearance of the most highly organized plants at\n     particular stages in the past history of the globe, and the entire\n     absence amongst fossil plants of any forms intermediate between\n     existing classes or families. The facts of pal\u00e6ontological botany\n     are opposed to Evolution, but they testify to Development, to\n     progression from lower to higher types. The cellular Alg\u00e6 preceded\n     the Vascular Cryptogams and the Gymnosperms of the Newer Pal\u00e6ozoic\n     rocks, and these were speedily followed by Monocotyledons, and, at\n     a much later period, by Dicotyledons. But the earliest\n     representatives of these various sections of the vegetable kingdom\n     were not generalized forms, but as highly organized as recent\n     forms, and in many cases more highly organized: and the divisions\n     were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as\n     decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.\n\nSo much for the vegetable world. As for the animal, although the number\nand complexity of its divisions makes it less easy to present so\ncomplete a sketch in these moderate limits, the features of its history\nare very similar. As Sir J. W. Dawson recounts it:[253]\n\nANIMAL DEVELOPMENT.\n\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n               |  Post Tertiary.   |  Man and Modern Mammals.       |\n               +----------------------------------------------------+\n             { |    Pliocene.      |                                |\n             { +----------------------------------------------------+\n   Tertiary. { |    Miocene.       |                                |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |    Eocene.        | Placental Mammals (Ungulates,  |\n             { |                   | Unguiculates, Rodents,         |\n             { |                   | Whales, Bats).                 |\n               +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |    Chalk.         |                                |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n   Secondary.{ |    Oolite.        | Birds.                         |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |    Trias.         | Marsupial Mammals.             |\n               +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |    Permian.       | Reptiles (various orders).     |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |  Carboniferous.   |                                |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |  Devonian, or     | Millipeds, Insects, Spiders,   |\n             { | Old Red Sandstone.| Scorpions, Fish, Batrachians,  |\n             { |                   | etc.                           |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n   Primary.  { |   Silurian.       |                                |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |   Cambrian.       | Shell Fish, Sponges, Molluscs, |\n             { |                   | Crustaceans, Worms, etc.       |\n             { +-------------------+--------------------------------+\n             { |   Huronian.       |  }                             |\n             { +-------------------+--}-----------------------------|\n             { |   Laurentian.     |  } Protozoa.                   |\n               +===================+================================+\n               |    AZOIC.         |                                |\n\nIn the Cambrian age, we obtain a vast and varied accession of living\nthings, which appear at once, as if by a sudden and simultaneous\nproduction of many kinds of animals. Here we find evidence that the sea\nswarmed with creatures near akin to those which still inhabit it, and\nnearly as varied.... Had we been able to drop our dredge into the\nCambrian or Silurian ocean, we should have brought up representatives of\nall the leading types of invertebrate life that exist in the modern\nseas--different, it is true, in details of structure from those now\nexisting, but constructed on the same principles, and filling the same\nplaces in nature.\n\nIn the latter half of the Pal\u00e6ozoic we find a number of higher forms\nbreaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of the\nearly Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great\nvariety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, singularly\nenough, belonging in many cases to groups now very rare; while the\ncommoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, Batrachian\nReptiles now abound, some of them very high in the sub-class to which\nthey belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and millipedes appear as well\nas land-snails: and this not in one locality only, but over the whole\nnorthern hemisphere.... Nor do they show any signs of an unformed or\nimperfect state.... The compound eyes and filmy wings of insects, the\nteeth, bones, and scales of batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly\nfinished, and many quite as complex and elegant, as the animals of the\npresent day.\n\nThis wonderful Pal\u00e6ozoic age was, however, but a temporary state of the\nearth. It passed away, and was replaced by the Mesozoic, emphatically\nthe age of Reptiles, when animals of that type attained to colossal\nmagnitude, to variety of function and structure, to diversity of habitat\nin sea and on land, altogether unexampled in their degraded descendants\nof modern times.... Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords\nappeared a few small and lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming\nage.[254] Birds also made their appearance.\n\nThe Kainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of Mammals and of Man. In it the\ngreat reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are replaced on\nland and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with those now\nliving, though differing as to genera and species. So greatly indeed did\nmammalian life abound in this period that in the middle part of the\nTertiary most of the leading groups were represented by more numerous\nspecies than at present, while many types then existing\n\n     have now no representatives. At the close of this great and\n     wonderful procession of living beings comes Man himself--the last\n     and crowning triumph of creation the head, thus far, of life on the\n     earth.\n\n[Illustration: DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT.\n\nIn the above Diagram the progress of Organic Development, as manifested\nin higher and higher types, is indicated by the increasing divergence of\nnew forms from primitive simplicity of structure, represented by the\nmedium line separating the vegetable and animal kingdoms.\n\nThe _Supposed line of continuous Evolution,_ indicates the gradual\ncourse which should be taken by Development, on Darwinian or Spencerian\nprinciples, by accumulation of minute differences in successive\ngenerations, as contrasted with the abrupt and simultaneous appearance\nof highly differentiated types, as spoken of by pal\u00e6ontologists.\n\n[_To face page 227._]]\n\nIt must be sufficient to quote one other remark:[255]\n\n     There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time\n     one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another....\n     On the other hand, we constantly find species replaced by others\n     entirely new, and this without any transition. The two classes of\n     facts are essentially different, though often confounded by\n     evolutionists; and though it is possible to point out in the newer\n     geological formations some genera and species allied to others\n     which have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms\n     proceeded from the earlier, still, as the connecting links cannot\n     be found, this is mere supposition, not scientific certainty.\n     Further, it proceeds on the principle of arbitrary choice of\n     certain forms out of many, without any evidence of genetic\n     connexion.\n\nHaving given a tabular view of Geological periods and Life-epochs,\nsimilar to those presented above, our author remarks:[256]\n\n     If in the table above we were to represent diagrammatically the\n     development of animals and plants, this would appear not as a\n     smooth and continuous stream, but as a series of great waves, each\n     rising abruptly, and then descending and flowing on at a lower\n     level along with the remains of those preceding it.\n\nAnd here may be noticed an observation made amongst others by the Comte\nde Saporta[257] on the remarkable parallelism of Animal and Vegetable\ndevelopment. After a period in which these kingdoms were respectively\nrepresented by aquatic _Alg\u00e6_ and _Protozoa_, land animals and land\nplants appear to have come in much at the same epoch; and afterwards\ndicotyledonous plants immediately preceded the advent of mammals.\n\nMr. Mivart is of like mind with the others we have heard. \"The mass of\npal\u00e6ontological evidence,\" he writes,[258] \"is indeed overwhelmingly\nagainst minute and gradual modification.\" He points out, with the _North\nBritish_ Reviewer so frequently quoted, that had the later forms of life\ndescended from the earlier, through such a series of imperceptible\ngradations as is imagined, the probability would be that no two fossil\nspecimens would be exactly alike, whereas in fact numbers are found of\ncertain particular patterns, and none whatever between them, fossil\nanimals and plants falling naturally into species, genera, families, and\nother categories just like those of the present day.\n\nIt is this total absence of graduated series, linking different forms\ntogether, that is the great and fundamental difficulty in the way of\ngenetic evolution. Yet this seems very seldom to be realized, and it\nseems constantly to be assumed that in order to establish the genetic\ncontinuity of two creatures no more is required than to discover\nanother standing more or less between them. Thus in the most famous of\nall instances, how often do we hear of \"the missing link\" between man\nand ape,--as though should a generalized form be disclosed, which might\nbe considered a common ancestor, the question of man's simian origin\nwould be finally settled. In the same way, as we have seen, the\nexistence of birds with reptilian features, is taken by some as\nconclusive proof that birds and reptiles have descended from one stock.\nBut what is most imperatively wanted, is persistently wanting,--namely\nsome evidence of a series in which one form passes to another, as in a\ndissolving view. And yet, genetic evolutionists must suppose such series\nto have been the universal rule throughout the whole course of life on\nearth.\n\n     Assuredly [writes M. de Quatrefages][259] is it not singularly\n     unfortunate for the evolutionary theory that so many facts which\n     tell against it should have been preserved in the scraps of\n     Nature's great book which remain to us, and that invariably those\n     which would have told in its favour were recorded in lost volumes\n     and missing leaves?\n\nIn some particular instances the absence of any trace of intermediate\nforms is especially significant. The tribe of Bats, for instance, is a\nvery singular one. The wings, in which form the fore-limbs are\nspecialized, represent the same elements as our own hands; and other\nmodifications of the same members have produced the paws of cats and\ndogs, the hoofs of horses and cattle, and the flippers of whales and\nporpoises,--to mention no others. What countless hosts of the Bat's\nancestors must have lived and died while by accumulation of minute\ndifferences the primitive generalized limb whence all these diverse\nforms originated, was being turned into a wing capable of flight. Yet of\nall these no vestige is to be discovered. \"Whenever the remains of bats\nhave been found,\" says Mr. Mivart,[260] \"they have presented the exact\ntype of existing forms.\" The same, he tells us, holds good of other\nflying creatures--birds and pterodactyles--(or flying lizards--now\nwholly extinct). No trace of any of these is forthcoming while their\nwings were in the making. \"Yet had such a slow mode of origin as\nDarwinians [and genetic evolutionists generally] contend for, operated\nexclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that bats, birds,\nand pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a\nsingle relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different\nforms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional\ncondition!\"\n\nThere are other creatures which stand in solitary isolation, with no\nfragments of a bridge to connect them with the general body. Such is the\nrattlesnake's family, whose pedigree, Mr. Mivart declares,[261] we\ncannot even imagine--\"The ancestors of the rattlesnake are beyond our\nmental vision.\"\n\n     But the number of forms [says the same author][262] represented by\n     many individuals, yet by _no transitional ones_, is so great that\n     only two or three can be selected as examples. Thus those\n     remarkable fossil reptiles, the Icthyosauria and Plesiosauria,\n     extended, through the secondary period, probably over the greater\n     part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met\n     with in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again,\n     with their modern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant\n     forms alone have been found, but no series of transitional ones\n     indicating minutely the line of descent. This group, the whales, is\n     a very marked one, and it is curious, on Darwinian principles, that\n     so few instances tending to indicate its mode of origin should have\n     presented themselves. Here, as in the bats, we might surely expect\n     that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages of its\n     development would have been left.\n\nProfessor W. C. Williamson likewise remarks[263] on these _lacun\u00e6_ which\npersistently occur at crucial points:\n\n     If [he writes] these generic types [of plants] first came before us\n     in such clearly defined forms, when and where did the transitional\n     states make their appearance? The extreme evolutionists constantly\n     affirm of those who believe in special creation that they\n     \"habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote\n     from human observation,\" and that \"the conception survives only in\n     connexion with imagined places where the order of organic phenomena\n     is unknown.\" It is legitimate to retort upon them that they as\n     habitually resort to \"strata now covered by the sea\"--to rocks\n     \"from which all traces of such fossils as they probably included\n     have been obliterated by igneous action,\" and to mysterious\n     \"migrations from pre-existing continents to continents that were\n     step by step emerging from the ocean.\" Unfortunately, so far as the\n     vegetable kingdom is concerned, we have as yet failed to discover\n     any traces of these mysterious strata or hypothetical continents in\n     which the transitions from one plant-type to another were being\n     brought about. The believers in special creations are not the only\n     reasoners who have made free use of hypothetical possibilities.\n\nHe presently adds:\n\n     We have no evidence that unaided Nature has produced a single new\n     type during the historic period. We can only conclude that the\n     wonderful outburst of genetic activity which characterized the\n     Tertiary age was due to some unknown factor, which then operated\n     with an energy to which the earth was a stranger, both previously\n     and subsequently. The knowledge of this factor is what we need in\n     order to perfect our philosophy; and until we obtain that\n     knowledge, many things must remain unaccounted for, so far as\n     primeval vegetation is concerned.\n\nAnd elsewhere Professor Williamson reiterates the same idea:[264]\n\n     I contend stoutly [he says] that, however numerous may be the facts\n     that sustain the doctrine of evolution (and I am prepared to admit\n     that there are many that do so in a remarkable manner), this\n     unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition of some\n     factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the\n     evolutionist school.\n\nIn the record of fossil fishes he finds some features which are\nparticularly hard to harmonize with any theory of genetic\nevolution.[265] Amongst the very earliest representatives of this class,\neven in the upper Silurian, are found remains of sharks, in his opinion\nthe highest order of fish, and in the Devonian and Carboniferous above,\nof _Ganoids_ armour clad, like the sturgeon. But nowhere below the Chalk\ndo we find a single scale of _Cycloids_ or _Ctenoids_, which in regard\nalike of the scales themselves, of the nervous system and of the\nreproductive organs, are much below the sharks, and not above the\n_Ganoids_. To complicate matters still more, however, the skeleton of\n_Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_ is more highly organized than that of the\nothers, and it is thus equally impossible to describe them as\nprogressive or as retrogressive types.[266]\n\nOver and above this absence of intermediate or link forms, the witnesses\nwho have been cited insist on the fact that those earliest found are\nnot simple or generalized representatives of their respective types, as\nthe theory of genetic evolution requires them to be, but are as\nperfectly finished and specialized as those appearing in later ages. To\ntheir testimony on this point may be added that of Professor Huxley, who\nwhile frankly confessing that he would be glad enough to find evidence\nin favour of such progressive modification, was constrained by his love\nof scientific truth to bear witness as follows:[267]\n\n     The only safe and unquestionable testimony we can procure--positive\n     evidence--fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive modification\n     towards a less embryonic, or less generalized type, in a great many\n     groups of animals of long-continued geological existence. In these\n     groups there is abundant evidence of variation--none of what is\n     generally understood as progression; and if the known geological\n     record is to be regarded as even any considerable fragment of the\n     whole, it is inconceivable that any theory of a necessarily\n     progressive development can stand, for the numerous orders and\n     families cited afford no trace of such a process.\n\nSo again he declared at a later period[268] summarizing what he had said\npreviously:\n\n     In answer to the question, What does an impartial survey of the\n     positively ascertained truths of pal\u00e6ontology testify in relation\n     to the common doctrines of progressive modification?... I reply: It\n     negatives these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of\n     such modification, or demonstrates such modification as has\n     occurred to have been very slight; and as to the nature of that\n     modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earliest\n     members of a long-existing group were more generalized in structure\n     than the later ones.\n\nHe went on, however, to say, on this latter occasion, that discoveries\nmade in the interval afforded much ground for softening \"the Brutus-like\nseverity\" which eight years before he had exhibited in this regard, by\ndisclosing such evidence as he had declared to be lacking. From the\nsamples, however, which he produced, it does not appear that this fresh\ntestimony comes to very much; and in view of the observations with which\nhe accompanied the exposition, it would seem that in only one instance\ndid it appear to himself thoroughly satisfactory.\n\n     Every fossil [he said][269] which takes an intermediate place\n     between forms of life already known, may be said, so far as it is\n     intermediate, to be evidence in favour of Evolution, inasmuch as it\n     shows a possible road by which Evolution may have taken place. But\n     the mere discovery of such a form does not, in itself, prove that\n     Evolution took place by and through it, nor does it constitute\n     more than presumptive evidence in favour of Evolution in general.\n\n     It is easy[270] to accumulate probabilities--hard to make out some\n     particular case in such a way that it will stand rigorous\n     criticism. After much search, however, I think that such a case is\n     to be made out in favour of the pedigree of the Horse.\n\nOf this famous instance we have already heard, and since it will be\nexamined at length in the following chapter, we will not dwell further\nupon it here.\n\nSo obvious indeed is this deficiency for evolutionary requirements of\nthe Geological record, that Professor Haeckel attempts to supply the\nwant by boldly interpolating a number of periods during which the\nmetamorphoses occurred, but of which no record was left. He assumes that\nbetween the epochs of depression, when fossils were deposited beneath\nthe water, there were other epochs of elevation when the land was dry\nand no deposits could occur, and he supposes that the abrupt changes of\nflora and fauna exhibited by successive formations, are due to the lapse\nof time of which we have no organic record in what he styles these\n\"Ante-periods.\"\n\nAs to this summary mode of loosing the Gordian knot, it will be\nsufficient to quote Professor Huxley's verdict: \"I confess this is\nwholly incredible to me.\"[271] And although in his favourable review of\nHaeckel's book[272] he showed himself far more tolerant of gratuitous\nspeculations, than his utterances on other occasions might have led us\nto expect, upon this point he declared: \"I fundamentally and entirely\ndisagree with Professor Haeckel.\"\n\nWe may sum up the testimonies of which the above are representative in\nthe words of two authorities by no means hostile to Evolution. M. Edmond\nPerrier,[273] having shewn how this theory is suggested by the\nsuccessive developments of type, and how the phenomena of organic life\nseem to harmonize with it, thus continues:\n\n     Unfortunately, when we descend to details, such pal\u00e6ontological\n     gaps present themselves that every sort of objection is possible.\n     The chain which morphology has allowed us to piece together is\n     continually snapped when we essay to travel back into the past....\n     The art of distinguishing realities from phantoms of the\n     imagination is what has made modern science so great and so mighty.\n     She is strong enough to win honour by avowing ignorance, and\n     because men see her always determined to speak the truth, they\n     gradually realize that she is not dangerous.\n\nAnd in his Presidential address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1902,\nProfessor S. H. Vines thus expressed himself as to the genealogical\ntable of organic life, which ever since the doctrine of Evolution was\naccepted, it has been sought to construct:\n\n     Though here and there fragments of the mosaic seem to have been\n     successfully pieced together, the main outlines, even, of the great\n     picture are as yet but dimly discernible.\n\n     The fact that organic Evolution should have proceeded so far as it\n     has within such limits of time as may reasonably be allowed,\n     admits, to my mind, of no other interpretation than that variation\n     is not indeterminate, but, as Lamarck and N\u00e4geli have urged, there\n     must exist in living matter a certain inherent tendency or bias in\n     favour of variation in the higher direction. It is this tendency or\n     bias that I venture to regard as the primordial factor.\n\nBut it is precisely such an inherent tendency of organic life to develop\non predetermined lines, which Darwinians and other advocates of\nEvolution by the agency of physical forces alone, vehemently repudiate\nas fatal to their whole system.\n\n     [Since Professor Williamson wrote, the opinion has been adopted\n     that for the very reason which induced him to place the Sharks\n     above the _Cycloids_ and _Ctenoids_, their relative positions\n     should be reversed. The Sharks being a more \"generalized\" type,\n     with features more akin to those of land-dwelling reptiles, and the\n     others more \"specialized\" for purely aquatic conditions, the\n     latter, it is argued, are a higher evolutionary product. As a\n     necessary corollary it is assumed that vertebrate life originated,\n     not, as had been supposed, in the sea, but in swamps or lagoons on\n     the shore-line. It must, however, remain a question how far the\n     facility with which theories can thus be modified according to\n     requirements, is calculated to inspire confidence in them.]\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\n\"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM\"\n\n\nWe have heard Mr. Carruthers' declaration, based upon his survey of\npal\u00e6ontological botany, \"The whole evidence is against Evolution, and\nthere is none in favour of it.\"\n\nRemarkably enough, at almost the same period[274] Professor Huxley\nconcluded a discussion of pal\u00e6ontological evidence with a precisely\ncontrary pronouncement--\"The whole evidence is in favour of Evolution,\nand there is none against it.\" On other occasions, also, he distinctly\nmaintained that it is just this line of enquiry which conclusively\nestablishes Evolution as no longer a theory, but an historical fact. To\nsuch a conclusion, he tells us,[275] \"an acute and critical-minded\ninvestigator is led by the facts of pal\u00e6ontology;\"--and, again, \"If the\ndoctrine of Evolution had not existed, pal\u00e6ontologists must have\ninvented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of\nthe remains of the Tertiary mammalia.\"\n\nSuch declarations clearly challenge consideration, especially when it\nis remembered how strict were the views which Professor Huxley professed\nas to the necessity of proofs for our beliefs,--\"that it is wrong for a\nman to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition\nunless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that\ncertainty.\"[276]\n\nWe therefore turn naturally to his lectures on Evolution, wherein he\ntreats the pal\u00e6ontological argument _ex professo_, and we find that his\nverdict is based upon a few selected instances, such as that of the\nreptilian birds already mentioned, which he considers favourable to\nEvolution, and one which he terms _demonstrative_,--namely that of the\nHorse. This he treats in some detail; in regard of it he delivers the\npositive judgment which we have just heard, and it therefore in a\nspecial manner demands our attention.\n\nAs furnishing evidence for the history of the horse, two features are of\nspecial importance, his limbs, and his teeth. Of these we may confine\nour attention to the former, as being, at once, sufficient for our\npurpose, and within the scope of ordinary observation.\n\nThe horse family, or _Equidae_, belong to the tribe of Ungulates, or\nhoofed animals, some points of whose anatomy require to be considered in\nrelation to our own.\n\nTaking first the fore-limbs. What we call the \"knee\" of a horse is in\nreality the wrist,--the true knee, or rather elbow, being what we call\nthe \"shoulder.\" Below the knee comes the \"cannon bone,\" corresponding to\nthe middle bone of the hand, and below it the \"pastern,\" \"coronary,\" and\n\"coffin\" bones, representing the joints of the solitary middle-finger,\nwhile the hoof is its greatly enlarged and thickened nail. Similarly, in\nthe hind-limbs; the \"hock\" is veritably the ankle, and again the lateral\ndigits are suppressed, the middle toe alone remaining.\n\nIt thus appears that an Ungulate such as the horse, is an extreme\nmodification of the general Mammalian plan, his members being highly\nspecialized for a certain kind of work. His leg and hoof, as the theory\nof genetic Evolution declares, have been gradually fashioned to their\npresent shape from an original limb in the common Mammalian ancestor,\nwhich by other modifications has equally produced the totally different\nmembers possessed by other mammals.\n\nThat the horse is descended from a race bearing more than one digit on\neach extremity, seems to be indicated by the splint-bones which are\nfound on the cannon-bone of both fore and hind legs, and which represent\nthe second and fourth finger and toe, and also by recorded occurrences\nof polydactyle horses, one of which has a distinguished place in history\nas Julius C\u00e6sar's charger.[277]\n\nThat the animal as we now know him is the lineal descendant of various\nother ungulates, in whom the digits were gradually reduced from the\nnormal number of five, to their present solitary representative,\nProfessor Huxley and other Evolutionists hold to be demonstrated by the\ndiscovery in due succession of various equine specimens, in which this\ndiminution is gradually exhibited.\n\nThe remains of these animals are all found in _Tertiary_ strata, of\nwhich, it will be remembered, there are three great divisions, the\n_Eocene_, _Miocene_, and _Pliocene_, the first named being the most\nancient, and the last the most recent.\n\nThe genus _Equus_, or at least our modern horse, _Equus caballus_, can\nbe traced no further back than the _Post-tertiary_ period. The\nsuccession of forms leading up thither commences at the bottom of the\n_Eocene_, and extends to the upper _Pliocene_.\n\nFollowing Professor Huxley's guidance, we trace the pedigree downwards,\nthus:\n\n     Firstly, there is the true horse. Next we have the American\n     Pliocene form, _Pliohippus_. In the conformation of its limbs it\n     presents some very slight deviations from the ordinary horse. Then\n     comes _Protohippus_, which represents the European _Hipparion_,\n     having one large digit and two small ones on each foot.... But it\n     is more valuable than _Hipparion_, for certain peculiarities tend\n     to show that the latter is rather a member of a collateral branch,\n     than a form in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward\n     order in time, is the _Miohippus_, [_Miocene_], which corresponds\n     pretty nearly with the _Anchitherium_ of Europe. It presents three\n     complete toes--one large median and two smaller lateral ones; and\n     there is a rudiment of that digit which answers to the little\n     finger of the human hand. The European record stops here: in the\n     American Tertiaries, the series of ancestral equine forms is\n     continued into the Eocene. An older Miocene form, _Mesohippus_, has\n     three toes in front, with a large splint-like rudiment representing\n     the little finger, and three toes behind. The _radius_ and _ulna_,\n     _tibia_ and _fibula_,[278] are distinct. Most important of all is\n     the _Orohippus_, from the Eocene. Here we find four complete toes\n     on the front limb, three toes on the hind-limb, a well developed\n     _ulna_, a well developed _fibula_.\n\nHere, when the lecture which we are considering was delivered, the\nseries terminated:--and upon the facts as above given Professor Huxley\nthus commented:\n\n     Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge\n     extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely\n     that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the\n     principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies\n     us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene\n     deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have\n     yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four\n     complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in\n     front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind\n     foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be\n     more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in\n     which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole\n     series must have taken its origin.\n\nFinally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the\nlecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals,\n_Eohippus_, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might\nfirst be looked for. \"This,\" adds Professor Huxley, \"is what I mean by\ndemonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is\nin favour of Evolution, and there is none against it.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThat these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all\nattention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are\nconclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many\nconsiderations require to be carefully weighed.\n\n(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other\ninstances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really\nwanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species\ngradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have\nheard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated,\nfor each belongs to a different _genus_,[279] which shows that the\ndifferences between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther\napart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for\nboth of these are classed in the genus _equus_,--or than the Bengal\ntiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus\n_felis_.\n\nThese various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and\nif they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway,\nwe ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those\nparticular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very\ndistinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge,\nyet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found,\nor, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were,\ncan it be said that the story of the fossil _equidae_ furnishes\nconvincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities\nthese various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that\naffinities necessarily imply descent.\n\nThere is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that\nProfessor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of _Eohippus_,\nand specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present.\nIn the same way, Professor Marsh[280] anticipates and describes a still\nmore remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been\nfound, he has provided an appellation, _Hippops_. But if either\nProfessor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted\nthat we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary\noutpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life\nwhereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence\nthat the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something\nanalogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their\ndiscovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that\ntheir actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that\nit is very definitely fixed.\n\n(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of\nwhich Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him,\n_Equus caballus_, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced\nto America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been\nhorses in America previously,--belonging to the genus _Equus_, perhaps\neven to the species _caballus_,--they had, however, been long extinct,\nand no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree\ngiven by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals,\nto which category belong all whose names terminate in _-hippus_, and\nthese cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European\nhorse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:[281]\n\n     In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,\n     beginning with the _Eohippus_ of the Eocene--an animal the size of\n     a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind--and these have\n     been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of\n     America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely\n     on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the\n     modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits\n     often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other\n     hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to\n     _Pal\u00e6otherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely\n     indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse\n     belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too\n     many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,\n     and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American\n     horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,\n     descendants of _Pal\u00e6otherium_, not of _Eohippus_; but if we had not\n     known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to\n     prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple\n     consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are\n     not of the nature of scientific evidence.\n\n(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much\ndiversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines\nof ancestry favoured--(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited\nin our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr.\nMivart,[282] (4) By Mr. Lydekker,[283] (5) In The _Evolution of the\nHorse_, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This\nlast gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of\nthe American Horse alone.\n\n  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   _Huxley._  |_British_      | _Mivart._   |_Lydekker._        |_American\n              |_Museum Case._ |             |                   | Museum._\n  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Equus       |Equus          |Equus        |Equus              |Equus\n  Pliohippus  |               |             |                   |\n  Protohippus |Hipparion      |Hipparion    |Hipparion          |Hipparion\n              |               |Protohippus  |Protohippus        |Hypohippus\n  Miohippus   |               |Anchitherium |Anchitherium       |Merychippus\n  Anchitherium|Anchitherium   |             |{Anchilophus       |{Mesohippus\n  Mesohippus  |Protohippus    |Pachynolophus|{(_form allied to_)|{ (_2 species_)\n              |{Mesohippus    |             |                   |Epihippus\n  Orohippus   |{ (_2 species_)|             |{Hyracotherium     |Protorohippus\n  Eohippus    |Hyracotherium  |Phenacodus   |{Systemodon        |Eohippus\n              |               |             |                   |_An undiscovered\n              |               |             |                   | ancestor_\n              |               |             |                   | (Hippops)\n  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIt will be observed, that whereas _Hipparion_ is disallowed by Professor\nHuxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other\ngenealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of _Equus_. Also that\nin all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used\nindifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that\nthere is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would\nlikewise appear that even the existence of _Eohippus_ himself is not\nbeyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name\nalways has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities\ngive an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still\nremains to be discovered.\n\nThere is something even more remarkable.\n\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF EQUID\u00c6.\n\n                        / +---------------------------------------------------+\n               Recent. {  | Equus Caballus.{*}                                |\n                        \\ +---------------------------------------------------+\n                        / |                                                   |\n                       {  | Equus Stenonis.{*}{**} E. Sivalensis.{*}{**} &c.  |\n          Quaternary.  {  |     Hippidium.{**}  E. Americanus.{**} &c.        |\n                       {  |                                                   |\n                        \\ +---------------------------------------------------+\n                        / |                                                   |\n                       {  |                                                   |\n                       {  | Pliohippus.                                       |\n           /           {  |                                                   |\n          {  Pliocene. {  | Hipparion.{*}{**}  Protohippus.                   |\n          {            {  |                                                   |\n          {            {  |                                                   |\n          {             \\ |                                                   |\n          {               +---------------------------------------------------+\n          {             / |                                                   |\nTERTIARY. {            {  |                                                   |\n          {   Miocene. {  | Hypohippus.  Parahippus.                          |\n          {            {  | Miohippus.  Anchitherium.{*}                      |\n          {            {  | Merychippus.                                      |\n          {            {  | Mesohippus.                                       |\n          {             \\ |                                                   |\n          {               +---------------------------------------------------+\n          {             / | Epihippus.                                        |\n          {            {  | Orohippus.  Hyracotherium.{*}                     |\n          {    Eocene. {  | Protorohippus.   Pachynolophus.{*}                |\n          {            {  | Eohippus.                                         |\n           \\           {  | Phenacodus.                                       |\n                        \\ |                                                   |\n                          +---------------------------------------------------+\n                          |                                                   |\n                          | Hippops (undiscovered).                           |\n              SECONDARY.  |                                                   |\n                          |   No trace of Mammals except small                |\n                          |       Marsupials and Insectivora.                 |\n                          |                                                   |\n\n{* Indicates an inhabitant of the Old World. All others are American.}\n\n{** \"Not in direct line of ancestry.\"}\n\nHuxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was\ndelivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had\ndeclared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other\ngenealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something\nreally satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870--which he thus indicated\nas scientifically established--was totally different from that of 1876,\nand was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter.\nIn 1870 the ancestry presented for _Equus_ consisted of _Hipparion_,\n_Anchitherium_, and _Plagiolophus_. Of these, _Hipparion_ was in 1876\nspecifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: _Anchitherium_ was\ndisplaced by _Miohippus_, and although we are told that these creatures\n\"correspond pretty nearly,\" the Horse cannot be descended from _both_,\nespecially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally\n_Plagiolophus_ disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing\ncould more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that\nan authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley\nshould thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after\ninformation to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures\nhappened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of _Hipparion_ to ancestral\nequine rank to be beyond dispute. \"No one will deny,\" he wrote,[284]\n\"that the _Hipparion_ is intermediate between the existing horse and\ncertain older ungulate forms.\" Yet, as we see, this has been denied by\nhis champion Huxley himself.\n\n(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various\nequine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed.\nAs a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton,\nso that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really\nlike, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to\nhim. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of\nthese as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse\ndescended from it. Thus in _Hippidium_, an American genus closely allied\nto _Equus_, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate\nin claws.[285] One species of _Hippidium_ is known only by a solitary\ntooth. Of _Hyracotherium_ only the skull has been found: of _Orohippus_\nonly parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of _Epihippus_, \"only\nincomplete specimens.\"[286] Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking\nof the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses\nhimself:[287]\n\n     Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated\n     the three animals [_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_, and _Equus_] are\n     filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before\n     I can arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is\n     proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It\n     appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the\n     testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I\n     must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not\n     be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate\n     transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every\n     part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the\n     stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....\n     Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual\n     shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.\n\n(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant\nparticular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's\nancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them\nthat all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly\nassists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent.\nBut as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the\nremoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. _Hyracotherium_,\nfor instance, was \"about the size of a hare,\"[288] and according to\nProfessor Cope, _Orohippus_ was the exact counterpart of this diminutive\nsteed. The hypothetical _Hippops_, which Professor Marsh locates in the\nlower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,[289] now \"be\npredicated with certainty;\" and amongst other things it \"probably was\nnot larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller.\" Sometimes, so far as\nevidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was\ndeterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus\n_Epihippus_, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than\n_Protorohippus_, found in the Middle Eocene; \"but,\" says the American\npamphlet,[290] \"no doubt there were others of larger size living at the\nsame time,\" which will scarcely be called convincing.\n\n[Illustration: \"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,\" FROM THE AMERICAN MUSEUM.\n\n\"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE,\" FROM HUXLEY'S _LECTURES ON EVOLUTION_.]\n\n(vi.) Worthy of notice also is \"the remarkable circumstance that in the\nline of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of\ngenerically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries\nof both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that\non both continents a parallel development of the same genera has\nsimultaneously taken place.\"[291] And, as we have seen, while the\nAmerican pedigree must have been entirely different from the European,\nit terminates equally in both continents with the genus _Equus_, if not\nactually with _Equus caballus_.[292] But, on any mechanical system of\nevolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along\nseparate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.[293] Mr.\nDarwin did not conceive it possible that the same species should be\nproduced twice over, \"if even the very same conditions of life, organic\nand inorganic should recur,\"[294] and the production of genuine horses,\nnot only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different\nancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr.\nMivart,[295] \"it follows from this generic identity, that classification\nwill be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard,\nnot the origin but the _outcome_ of development, whether of the\nindividual or the species.\"\n\n(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of\nthe above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound\nand substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last\nungulate is lineally descended from the first,--_Equus_ from _Eohippus_,\n_Hyracotherium_, _Phenacodus_, or _Hippops_,--but that this first\nungulate himself--whichever it was--has been, or at least may have been,\nsimilarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common\nparent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all\nthese from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the\ninfinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a\nperiod of time inconceivably long--immensely longer than that required\nto change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a\nhighly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the\nnails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution\nwould be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all\nMammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while\nthis development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian\nlife, as raw material for its operations--and of this at least _some_\ntrace should remain.\n\nBut, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon\nearth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could\npossibly have sprung. _Phenacodus_, is in fact described as,[296] \"The\nmost primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered.\" He appears in the Lower\nTertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,--the whole\nperiod covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of\nTertiary mammals generally,--are practically devoid of mammalian remains\naltogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no\nmore suppose _Phenacodus_ and the huge and various beasts who were his\nEocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of\nshrew-mice.\n\nIt also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental\nmammals first show themselves all over the world at the beginning of\nthe Eocene,--while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems\nto have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of\nextreme diversities of structure:--as for instance Unguiculates (or\nclawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing\nanimals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the\nCetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:[297]\n\n     The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than\n     any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by\n     two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The\n     great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (_Zeuglodon_) which have\n     these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are\n     undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.\n     This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the\n     theory of Evolution.... \"We may question,\" says Gaudry,[298] \"these\n     strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their\n     progenitors--they leave us without reply.\" ... Their silence is the\n     more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have\n     been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages\n     of their development.\n\nThe Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from\nthe generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in\nquite another direction. But they appear with their wings fully\ndeveloped, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.\n\n     Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson][299] that it is \"natural to\n     suppose\" that there must have been species existing previously with\n     shorter fingers[300] and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts\n     to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since\n     the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps\n     harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the\n     present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to\n     develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a\n     bat?\n\nSuch instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties\nconfined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when\nAnchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might\nclaim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but\nPerissodactyles, or \"odd-toed,\" like himself. These were the\n\"Proboscideae\"--\"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a\nhand,\" in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other\nfamilies, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of\ntheir race, for some of their Miocene specimens[301] are about half as\nlarge again as the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray\nLankester has recently declared[302] that we now understand the genetic\naffinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into\ntrunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement\nhe adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain\nrecently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called\nfinal which are based upon such partial evidence?[303] As M. Gaudry,\nconvinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very\nmatter:[304]\n\n     Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did\n     they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do\n     not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as\n     a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great\n     to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans\n     and animals of other orders as yet known to us.\n\nSuch then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the\ngenesis of the Horse, \"the most famous instance of geological\nevidence\"[305] which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to\ndemonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be\nsupposed to merit any such description. In view of the various\ndifficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is\nsatisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone\nare such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the _Equid\u00e6_.\nEven were the reality of this established to the full, how would such\nevidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of\nOrganic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its\nhistory?[306]\n\nWe find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares pal\u00e6ontology to be\nthe main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact\ncontrary.\n\n     The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson][307] is\n     essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much\n     more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them\n     more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants\n     revealed by the rocks of the earth.\n\nSimilarly Professor Williamson,[308] speaking of the efforts made to\nobtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: \"Not only living, but\nextinct animals have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has,\nwith his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the\ngeological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one.\"\n\nMore important than all,--Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the\npal\u00e6ontological evidence is far short of what it should be:--and\nattempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the\ngeological record:--a plea to be more fully considered presently.\n\nWe must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological\nrecord adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a\nslight specimen,--- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the\napetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom\nof the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious\nEvolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a\nperfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days,\nin which \"we may suppose\" all the forms of after vegetation to have\nbegun their career as seaweeds.[309]\n\nBut in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he\ngoes much further, and prints[310] an elaborate genealogy upon which\nProfessor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he\nexhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an \"Ancestral Series of\nthe human pedigree,\" which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers will\nnaturally suppose to be based upon pal\u00e6ontological evidence. This\nwonderful genealogy stands thus:\n\n1. _Monera._ 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval\nanimals. 4. Ciliated planul\u00e6 (_Plan\u00e6ada_). 5. Primeval Intestinal\nanimals (_Gastr\u00e6ada_). 6. Gliding Worms (_Turbellaria_). 7. Soft-worms\n(_Scolecida_). 8. Sack worms (_Himatega_). 9. _Acrania._ 10.\n_Monorrhina._ 11. Primeval fish (_Selachii_). 12. Salamander fish\n(_Dipneusta_). 13. Gilled Amphibia (_Sozobranchia_). 14. Tailed Amphibia\n(_Sozura_). 15. Primeval Amniota (_Protamnia_). 16. Primary Mammals\n(_Promammalia_). 17. _Marsupialia._ 18. Semi-apes (_Prosimi\u00e6_). 19.\nTailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like\nApes). 21. _Pithecanthropus_ (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking\nMan.\n\n     The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages][311] is that not\n     one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,\n     either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon\n     theory.[312] All species, existing or extinct, are said to have\n     been preceded by ancestral forms, which have disappeared leaving\n     no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill\n     represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up\n     the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is\n     sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types\n     themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them\n     [for example No. 7, The _Scolecida_, and No. 21,\n     _Pithecanthropus_].\n\nThis kind of \"Science\" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will\nbe sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:[313]\n\n     If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree\n     telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the\n     missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters\n     which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that\n     have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does\n     continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his\n     genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another\n     would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures\n     actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he\n     unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in\n     phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the\n     discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more\n     than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely\n     hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a\n     trace of it, or ever will.\n\nIt is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the\nRiddles of the Universe.\n\nAs Vogt himself wrote,[314] \"We shall be compelled to patch and alter\nthese genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set\nforth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism.\"\n\nAnd Du Bois-Reymond,[315] \"Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is\nworth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical\nhistorians.\"\n\nThere remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted\ndeficiency of pal\u00e6ontological evidence.\n\n     The main cause [he writes][316] of innumerable intermediate links\n     [between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout\n     nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through\n     which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant\n     their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of\n     extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of\n     intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly\n     enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every\n     stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not\n     reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,\n     is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged\n     against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the\n     extreme imperfection of the geological record.\n\nHow imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has\nno difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been\ndefaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to\nour inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is\ncontinually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not\nappear that it need detain us long.\n\nIt is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot\nprove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof\nof that theory which is required. Apart from pal\u00e6ontological facts, as\nProfessor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one\nway or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently\ncomplete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be\nscientifically established.\n\nIs it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that\nprecisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which\nthe Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which\nappears to contradict it?\n\nBut, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record\nundoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what\nexists,--there still remains a vast mass of information which it has\nactually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as\nto the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If,\nas on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were\nin each line of descent no successive species or genera, made up of\nforms clustered round one point in the course of development more than\nanother, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such\nisolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no\nsingle instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking\nthem together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points\nin Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and\napparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?\n\nIt is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite\ninconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly\nunmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is\nsufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the\nHorse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for\nhis Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed _Equus_\ndid not exist during the earlier periods when _Eohippus_,\n_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_ and the rest of them were preparing the way\nfor his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with\nothers more ancient still which are set down as _their_ ancestors. But\non what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains\nof the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less\ndeveloped. If such a reason be sufficient--which we will not\nquestion--it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of\nintermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in the supposed\npedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms\nthere never were.\n\nIt is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell\nthe wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the\nright one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing\nus to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring\nlines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart\ntells us,[317] \"It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared\nat first to indicate a _gradual transition_, which instances have been\nshown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly\nanything of the kind.\" Another example of the same sort is furnished by\nthe recent discovery of _Arsinoetherium_, a genus of very large and\nheavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered\nin the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large\nrhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we\nare told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and\ntwo smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite\napart _from all other mammals_.\n\nIt thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the\nbar of Pal\u00e6ontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend\nis, Not proven.\n\nOne thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic\nEvolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the\ndevelopment of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been\nfound by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we\nknow.\n\nAs the Count de Saporta writes:[318]\n\n     Although the problem of \"creation,\"--formerly thought so simple,\n     and dated almost within human ken and the period of human\n     history--has now been relegated to a period too distant to be\n     imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the\n     problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been\n     shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been\n     altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more\n     and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to\n     investigate remains precisely the same.\n\nSo too M. Blanchard:[319]\n\n     There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the\n     apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it\n     would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.\n     If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang\n     from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,\n     the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of\n     the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less\n     marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.\n\nAnd, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell,\nwhen he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory,\nwrote to him,[320]--\"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much\nrequired as ever.\"\n\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\nTO SUM UP\n\n\nIt is time to return to the point from which we started our whole\nenquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a\nsolution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which\nwe dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever,\nwe saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no\nless than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning,\nand there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,--a cause\ncapable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced.\nThe material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,--organic life\nwith all its infinite marvels and varieties--animal sensation--human\nintelligence--canons of beauty, the law of good and evil--all these must\nhave existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence\nalone they could be derived.\n\nThe Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we\nset ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science\nhas found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe itself as\nthey come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces\nwhich she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In\nparticular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various\nsignifications, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine,\nfrom the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be\nsaid that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.\n\nThe result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has\nimmensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be\naccounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account\nfor them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of\nNature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than\nthey were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of\nmotion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational\nintelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order\nto which all Nature testifies,--all these are for Science utterly\nunsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must\nremain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be\nthat any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the\nsublime and beautiful,--and above all--of the distinction between right\nand wrong.\n\nHere, then, Science stops,--confessing that she can be our guide no\nfarther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions\nwhich are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name. Her domain\nis the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within\nthat realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our\nintellectual need for causality.\n\nAre we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First\nCause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the\nAgnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must\nnot pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When\nScience fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,--thus only\ncan our position still be scientific.\n\nBut is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and\nmonstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our\nsenses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less\ncertain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the\nmonument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it\ncontains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one\nadequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as\nthe proverb says, \"Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in\nit.\" From such conclusions there is no escape;--and since it is\nimpossible to find the cause required within the world of material\nforces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must\nlie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTherefore, also, we know something concerning that Cause,--very little,\nperhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,--but still something\nvery substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must\npossess every excellence which we discover in Nature,--all that she has,\nand more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of\nitself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is\nno power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in\nNature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be\nsupereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise\nof its might,--or it would be inferior to its own works.\n\n     Since there must have been something from eternity, [says\n     Bolingbroke][321] because there is something now, the eternal Being\n     must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;\n     for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce\n     entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must\n     exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or\n     whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to\n     conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a\n     cause.\n\nIt is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion\nof the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they\nassume \"as absolutely self-evident\" the existence of a Deity who is the\nCreator and Upholder of all things.\n\nIt will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which\nformidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the\nwhole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did\nnot Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own\nimage and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be\nmore conclusive than that?\n\nBut what--after all--does \"Anthropomorphism\" mean in this connexion?\nSimply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is\nsuperhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are\nby the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression\nexcept such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can\nconvince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some\nextent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no\ndescription of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination,\nexcept so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external\nworld. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial\nbeing, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the\nobject they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give\nit one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise\nthey could not portray it at all. But however such images may be\nrefined and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as\nconventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as\ndifferent from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on\nthe score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music\nis a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are\nheads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the\nTheistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into\nwords we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and\nto borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the\nhighest and noblest element found in the Universe,--namely our own\nintelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally\npossessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is\nsound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible\nexcellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only\nwhen it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of\nan inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained\nin a pound,--but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper.\nAccording to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of\nenergy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from\nobservation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and\nlight; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and\nobvious enough, often as it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver\nLodge has lately put the matter:[322]\n\n     Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no\n     worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many\n     errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy\n     attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its\n     existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no\n     more.\n\nOr as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:[323]\n\n     That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself\n     thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or\n     express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained\n     be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than\n     the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the\n     more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason\n     disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of\n     the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as\n     existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,\n     independently of the mind of the investigator.\n\nThe reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the\nforce of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a\nfundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce\nthe element of purpose in Nature is to deny the continuity of Natural\nlaw, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure,\nis equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that\nparticular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may\nbe supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of \"the commoner\nand coarser forms of teleology,\" giving as an instance the supposition\nthat eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors\nto see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less\ndifficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any\npurpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;--but evidently it\nis taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature\nto be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or\npeacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has\nbeen said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it\nis through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes\ncame to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there\nis of admitting the Creator into Creation. \"It is still assumed on both\nsides,\" he wrote,[324] \"that there must be something inexplicable or\nmiraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,\"--and\nalthough we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of\nTheists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections\non this head can only signify that it is with the laws of Nature as\nwith a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and\nset it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as\na legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge\nwho administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete\ncases,--so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted,\nprovides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He\nhas instituted.\n\nSo it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must\nconceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of\nall things, while Lord Kelvin declares[325] we are unmistakably shown\nthrough Nature that she depends upon one \"ever-acting Creator and\nRuler.\" It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds\nthe modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs,\nindeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence\nby identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter\nqualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific\nexperience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point\nas against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be \"the most\nillogical form of metaphysics,\" and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, \"not so\nmuch error as sheer nonsense.\" Theism avoids the error of either\nextreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction\nbetween the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His\ncreatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and\nthat in their every operation He is manifested.\n\nAnd so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world,\nand the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a\nSelf-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a\nbasis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need\nof causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as\nnecessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only\nindirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.\n\nBy no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck,\nthe real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore\nrepresent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with\nthem we may conclude.[326]\n\n     Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is\n     seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though\n     indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he\n     observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally\n     solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by\n     the consideration of His works....\n\n     Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of\n     things constituting a power subject to law, cannot therefore be\n     God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,\n     of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus\n     the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,\n     since these laws originate from Him.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\n_A._ _Evolution and the lower forms of life_ (_p. 165_).\n\nA singularly instructive field for the study of the mutability or\nstability of species should be afforded by the lower forms of life, in\nwhich organization is reduced to a minimum, they being mere masses of\nprotoplasm without even a containing envelope, while their nourishment\nis of the simplest. It would therefore appear that environment should be\nall-potent to modify them and produce specific modifications, while the\nextreme rapidity with which they propagate their kind, and that\nunisexually, ought to require no vast extent of time to make such\ntransmutations apparent.\n\nIt is found, however, on the contrary, that nowhere in organic nature\ndoes the type remain more rigidly persistent. Professor Macbride, for\nexample, tells us,[327]\n\n\"The Myxomycet\u00e6 may be regarded as the organic group in which the forces\nof heredity,--whatever these forces may be--are at their maximum: they\nhave responded as little as possible to the influence of their\nenvironment.\"\n\nTo the same effect speaks Professor Paulesco of Bucharest, of other\nelementary organisms.[328]\n\nWhat is still more remarkable, these same organisms are extremely\nsensitive to altered conditions of environment, which have a direct and\nimmediate influence, gravely modifying their morphological and\nphysiological characters, changes in respect of light, minute\nalterations of temperature, or the introduction of a new chemical\nsubstance, even in infinitesimal quantity, frequently causing them to\nassume forms very different from the specific type, and profoundly\nmodifying their nutritive processes.\n\nHere, it was at first thought, when Pasteur revealed their history, is\nclear evidence of specific transformation. But he presently convinced\nhimself and others that it is not so, for although liable to assume such\npolymorphic forms according to the conditions in which they find\nthemselves, there is no alteration of specific nature, and if the\noriginal circumstances be restored, the original forms reappear--\"une\n\u00e9lasticit\u00e9 functionelle de la cellule lui permettant de se plier \u00e0 des\nconditions vari\u00e9es d'existence sans changer d'\u00eatre.\" (Pasteur.)\n\nAs M. Duclaux adds:[329]\n\n\"La notion d'esp\u00e8ce ne disparait pas pour cela. La variabilit\u00e9 est un\ncaract\u00e8re comme un autre, bien que plus difficile \u00e0 inscrire dans la\nclassification, et une esp\u00e8ce est aussi bien d\u00e9finie par les\nsensibilit\u00e9s diverses qu'elle manifeste que par la petite liste des mots\net de propri\u00e9t\u00e9s dans laquelle on croyait pouvoir autrefois enfermer\ntoute son histoire.... La lien de l'esp\u00e8ce c'est la loi qui pr\u00e9side \u00e0\nces changements, et la vari\u00e9t\u00e9 des formes et des fonctions n'est pas du\ntout en contradiction avec l'unit\u00e9 de l'esp\u00e8ce.\"\n\n\n_B._ _Note on Chap. XV. p. 203._\n\nSince the foregoing pages have been in type there has come to hand the\nNew York _Literary Digest_ of January 23, 1904, containing the following\narticle (p. 119).\n\n\"ARE THE DAYS OF DARWINISM NUMBERED?\"\n\nThe recent death of Herbert Spencer lends special timeliness to the\nabove topic, which is being actively debated just now in German\ntheological circles. The immediate cause of the revival of interest in\nthe present status of the Darwinian theory is found in a lengthy article\nby the veteran philosopher, Edward von Hartmann, which appears in\nOswald's _Annalen der Naturphilosophie_ (vol. ii. 1903), under the title\n'Der Niedergang der Darwinismus' ('The Passing of Darwinism'). That the\nfamous 'philosopher of the unconscious' is not prejudiced in favour of\nbiblical views has been more than clear since the publication of his\n_Selbstzersetzung der Christentums_ ('Disintegration of Christianity')\nin 1874. Hartmann in his new article has this to say--\n\n'In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older group of\nsavants to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies,\nthe new idea began to gain ground rapidly in all cultured countries. In\nthe eighties, Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an\nalmost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties, for\nthe first time, a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were\nheard, and these gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming\nat the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the\ntwentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are\nnumbered. Among its latest opponents are such savants as Eimer, Gustav\nWolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann, Reinke, and many\nothers.'\n\nThese facts, according to Hartmann's view, while they do not indicate\nthat the Darwinian theory is doomed, undermine its most radical\nfeatures:\n\n'The theory of descent is safe, but Darwinism has been weighed and found\nwanting. Selection can in general not achieve any positive results, but\nonly negative effects; the origin of species by minimal changes is\npossible, but has not been demonstrated. The pretensions of Darwinism as\na pure mechanical explanation of results that show purpose are totally\ngroundless.'\n\nOther scholars think that Hartmann does not do full justice to the\nreaction that has set in, particularly in Germany, against Darwinism.\nThis sentiment is voiced by Professor Zoeckler, of the University of\nGreifswald, in the _Beweis des Glaubens_ (No. xi.), a journal which\nrecently published a collection of anti-Darwinian views from German\nnaturalists. He calls the article of Hartmann 'the tombstone-inscription\n[_Grabschrift_] for Darwinism,' and goes on to say:\n\n     'The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically\n     must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartmann's exposition nor\n     the authorities he cites have the force of moral conviction for the\n     claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is\n     not a scientifically demonstrated proposition, although descent in\n     an ideal sense can be made to harmonize with the biblical account\n     of creation.'\n\nViews of a similar kind are voiced in many quarters. The Hamburg savant,\nEdward Hoppe, has written a brochure, _Ist mit der Descendenz-Theorie\neine religi\u00f6se Vorstellung vereinbar?_ [Is the Theory of Evolution\nreconcilable with the Religious Idea?] in which he takes issue, in the\nname of religion, with the purely naturalistic type of Darwinian\nthought. The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwinian views is\nProfessor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, who has not only discarded the\nmechanical conception of the origin of being, but the whole Darwinian\ntheory. He recently delivered a course of lectures, entitled 'Die\nDarwin'sche Theorie,' which have appeared in book form in Leipsic. He\ncomes to this conclusion: 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a\nsingle fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result\nof scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.'\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom another article in the same journal (p. 116), entitled 'A Study of\nCreation,' the following paragraphs may be cited:\n\n     \"The French have never been enthusiastic Darwinians. It is,\n     perhaps, not surprising, therefore, to find a French geologist, M.\n     Stanislas Meunier, arguing in the _Revue Scientifique_ (December\n     19) against all schools of transformism and stoutly maintaining\n     what is practically a doctrine of special creation. He admits that\n     living beings form a connected series; but the connexion, he\n     believes, is not one of physical descent, but inheres in something\n     outside of and pre-existent to the earth. He does not name it, but\n     he would probably not object to the inference that it is the mind\n     of a creator.\n\n     \"M. Meunier gives at some length his reasons for rejecting\n     Darwin's, Lamarck's, and all other theories of transformism. All we\n     can be sure of, he thinks, is that, as in the case of the various\n     kinds of pottery, we have to do with an orderly development,\n     although he thinks it is not a development by descent. He closes,\n     thus:\n\n     \"'Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis on the mechanism\n     of the production of living things; but it is, perhaps, a step in\n     advance only to come to the conclusion that the cause of life and\n     its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth; that it\n     is anterior to our world, just as are doubtless the laws of physics\n     and chemistry, which govern the relations of matter and force\n     throughout space.\n\n     \"'The philosophy of science can lose nothing by the admission of\n     points of view that, far from narrowing our subjects of study,\n     enlarge them beyond all limits; and this is, perhaps, the occasion\n     to show once more to persons who are turning toward metaphysics in\n     their thirst for mystery, that they will find in pure science that\n     wherewith they may satisfy their legitimate aspirations.'\"\n\n\n_C._ _Succession of Plant forms p. 220._\n\nRecent investigations have led to the remarkable discovery that many\nfern-like plants of the Carboniferous rocks, hitherto classed as\nCryptogams, were in reality seed-bearers, and thus intermediate between\nCryptogams and Cycads, the most primitive of existing seed-plants. They\nhave accordingly been placed in a special group \"Cycadofilices,\" or\n\"Fern-Cycads,\" and regarded as transitional types, the view that they\nare the remains of a natural bridge connecting the Ferns with the\nGymnosperms having received wide support,[330] and at first sight this\nconclusion would appear natural and obvious. But here, as in other\ncases, the difficulty is that the seeds which have been found are all\nfully developed; there are none in the intermediate stages between true\nspores and true seeds; we have the finished article, but no trace of\nseeds in the making; which upon any theory of evolution must have been\nexceedingly numerous. Hence Dr. Scott tells us:[331]\n\n\"The important discoveries of the seeds of the Pteridosperms scarcely\ntouch the question of descent, for these organs are of too advanced a\ntype to throw light on the probable derivation of the group.\"\n\nIn this instance, therefore, as in others, it remains true that in no\ncase is any trace found of rudimentary character in the earliest fossil\nspecimens of any class.\n\nIt is undoubtedly a further puzzle that some of the Carboniferous\ncryptogams which did not bear real seeds, yet simulated them, a habit\nnot easily explained on evolutionary principles.\n\n\n_D._ _The Course of Evolution._\n\nThe evidence of Professor Vines quoted in the text (pp. 202, 237)\nreceives a remarkable confirmation from that of Dr. Smith Woodward,\nKeeper of Geology in the National Museum of Natural History. Speaking\nbefore the International Congress of Arts and Science, St. Louis,\nU.S.A., September 22nd, 1904, he thus touched upon the same question,\nwhich he illustrated especially from the history of fossil fishes, which\nhe has made his special study.[332]\n\n     \"It must be confessed that repeated discoveries have now left faint\n     hope that exact and gradual links will ever be forthcoming between\n     most of the families and genera. The 'imperfection of the record,'\n     of course, may still render some of the negative evidence\n     untrustworthy; but even approximate links would be much commoner in\n     collections than they actually are if the doctrine of gradual\n     evolution were correct. Pal\u00e6ontology, indeed, is clearly in favour\n     of the theory of discontinuous mutation, or advance by sudden\n     changes, which has lately received so much support from the\n     botanical experiments of H. de Vries.\n\n     \"Further results obtained from the study of fossils have a bearing\n     even on the deepest problems of Biology, namely, those connected\n     with the nature of life itself. For instance, it is allowable to\n     infer, from the statements already made, that the main factor in\n     the evolution of organisms is some inherent impulse--the 'bathmic\n     force' of Cope--which acts with unerring certainty whatever be the\n     conditions of the moment.\"\n\n\n_E._ _Pedigree of the Horse._\n\nSome recent evidence on this subject certainly does not clear away the\ndifficulties set forth in the text.\n\nFrom _Nature_, Sept. 8, 1904, p. 474.\n\n     \"Professor Osborn (in a lecture before the British Association)\n     mentioned that more than a hundred more or less complete skeletons\n     of horses and horse-like animals had been found in North America.\n     He thought he had established the fact that horses were\n     polyphyletic, there being four or five contemporary series in the\n     Miocene, but that the direct origin of the genus _Equus_ in North\n     America was not established with certainty.\"\n\nProfessor Sedgwick, _Student's Text Book of Zoology_, p. 599.\n\n     \"Much has been written on the ancestry of the horse. It has been\n     maintained by many authors that a continuous series of forms\n     connecting it with the four-toed, brachyodont Hyracothorid\u00e6 of the\n     Eocene has been discovered, and that here if anywhere a\n     demonstrative historical proof has been obtained of the doctrine of\n     organic evolution. Without desiring in the smallest degree to\n     impugn that doctrine, it may be permitted us here to examine rather\n     closely the view that the series of forms which recent\n     pal\u00e6ontological research has undoubtedly brought to light\n     constitute that historical proof which has been claimed for them.\"\n\n[After an examination of the structural characters of these intermediate\nforms, viz., _Pliohippus_, _Protohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Miohippus_,\n_Mesohippus_, _Orohippus_, and _Hyracotherium_, the author proceeds]:\n\n     \"So far as the characters mentioned are concerned, we have here a\n     very remarkable series of forms which at first sight seem to\n     constitute a linear series with no cross-connections. Whether,\n     however, they really do this is a difficult point to decide. There\n     are flaws in the chain of evidence, which require careful and\n     detailed consideration. For instance, the genus _Equus_ appears in\n     the Upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene\n     age. It has, however, been maintained that these beds are in\n     reality Lower Pliocene, or even Upper Pliocene. It is clear that\n     the decision of this question is of the utmost importance. If\n     _Equus_ really existed in the Upper Miocene, it was antecedent to\n     some of its supposed ancestors. Again in the series of equine\n     forms, _Mesohippus_, _Miohippus_, _Desmathippus_, _Protohippus_,\n     which are generally regarded as coming into the direct line of\n     equine descent, Scott[333] points out that each genus is, in some\n     respect or other, less modified than its predecessor. In other\n     words, it would appear that in this succession of North American\n     forms the earlier genera show, in some points, closer resemblance\n     to the modern _Equus_ than to their immediate successors. It is\n     possible that these difficulties and others of the same kind will\n     be overcome with the growth of knowledge, but it is necessary to\n     take note of them, for in the search after truth nothing is gained\n     by ignoring such apparent discrepancies between theory and fact.\"\n\nBesides the structure of limbs and teeth, another argument for the\ndescent of the horse has been drawn from certain phenomena of\ncolouration. Stripings are found not unfrequently to occur in the legs\nand withers, which Darwin took for a reversion to the character of a\nvery remote ancestor, the common parent, in fact, of horses and asses,\nwhich he supposed to have been striped all over like a zebra. Like other\nsuch common ancestors, this hypothetical animal had never been seen, but\nwas thought to be most nearly represented by the Kathiwar horse, with\nstripes on a dun ground, a specimen of which is exhibited as\nillustrating the hypothesis in the National Museum of Zoology.\n\nRecently, however, Professor Ridgeway, who has devoted special attention\nto the problem, has satisfied himself that there is no sufficient\nfoundation for these suppositions. He thus sums up the evidence which he\nhas been able to collect:[334]\n\n     \"Darwin's view that the original ancestor of the Equid\u00e6 was a\n     dun-coloured animal, striped all over, was based, not merely on the\n     occurrence of stripes in horses, but on his belief that such\n     stripes were common in dun horses, and that there was a tendency in\n     horses to revert to dun colour. But it must be confessed that the\n     facts do not warrant his conclusion.... It is clear that stripes\n     are at least as often a concomitant of dark as of dun colour.\n     Moreover, if Darwin's hypothesis of a dun-coloured ancestor with\n     stripes is sound, dark colours such as bay and brown must be of\n     more recent origin, and accordingly there ought to be a great\n     readiness on the part of a progeny of a light-coloured animal when\n     mated with a dark to revert to the light. But Professor Ewart's\n     zebra stallion has never been able to stamp his own peculiar\n     pattern or his own colours on his hybrid offspring. The ground\n     colour has been determined by the dams of the hybrids.\"\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n_Abiogenesis_, 49-51\n\n_\u00c6tiology_, 197\n\nAgnosticism, Huxley's first principle of, 4\n  Its fundamental principle unreasonable, 272\n\nAmerican Museum and the pedigree of the Horse, 248\n\nAmphibians, embryology, 195\n\n\"Anthropomorphism,\" 274, 275\n\n_Arch\u00e6opteryx_, 171\n\n_Archebiosis_, 53\n\nArgus pheasant, ornamentation, 175\n\n_Arsinoetherium_, 267\n\nAtlantic cable, an illustration from, of chance and purpose, 115\n\nAtoms, 37, 41, 88, 89, 90, 136\n\nAugustine, St.--on creation _causaliter et seminaliter_, 141, 207\n\n_Axolotl_, 195\n\n\nBaden-Powell, Prof.--on the nature of the First Cause, 276\n\nBastian, Dr. H. C.--on spontaneous generation, 21, 50, 53\n\n_Bathybius Haeckelii_, 21\n\nBatrachians, appearance of, 225\n\nBats, an evolutionary puzzle, 229, 257\n\nBee, cell-making instinct, 156, 179\n\nBickerton, Prof.,--on dissipation of energy, 27 n.\n\n_Biogenesis_, 49, 50\n\nBlanchard, M.--on variation, 164;\n  on Darwinian argumentation, 181;\n  on fecundity as a factor in survival, 188;\n  on the problem of creation, 268\n\nBolingbroke, Viscount,--on the nature of the first cause, 273\n\nBridgman, Laura, 77\n\nBunsen, Chevalier,--on animal sounds and language, 74\n\nButler, Bishop,--on intelligence as a factor in cosmogony, 100\n\n\nCarruthers, Mr. W.--on specific stability of _Salix polaris_, 164;\n  on classification of plants, 214;\n  on the geological record, 216, 265;\n  on past history of plant-life, 216 _seq._; on\n  an assertion of Haeckel's, 221;\n  on the evidence supplied by fossil plants, 223\n\nCase,  Prof.--on the meaning of \"fortuitous,\" 125\n\nCausation, principle of, 2, 87, 94, 107\n\nCause, the First. See _First Cause_\n\nChance, 110 _seq._, 151, 174\n\nCicero--on the evidence for a Deity, 103\n\nClerk-Maxwell, Prof.--on force and energy, 23n;\n  on Molecules, 90, 104;\n  on evidence of design, _ibid._\n\nClifford, Prof. W. K.--on design in Nature, 101\n\nClodd, Mr. E.--on atoms, 41\n\nComte, Auguste--on materialism, 278\n\nConsciousness, origin of, 67\n\n_Cosmos_ and its Cause, 86 _seq._\n\nCroll, Mr.--on force and its determination, 94-96\n\nCrookes, Sir W.--on renovation of energy, 26;\n  on radium and radio-activity, 42, 43\n\nCryptogamous plants, fossil history, 219\n\nCrystallization, 63, 64\n\n\nDarwin, Mr.--on the \"law of continuity,\" 57;\n  on spontaneous generation, 58;\n  on the mental gulf between man and brute, 71;\n  on the origin of language, 79, 178;\n  on \"creation,\" 91;\n  on the structure of the eye, 91;\n  on chance as a factor of the world, 116;\n  on pain and suffering as an objection to design, 119;\n  disclaims achievements attributed to him, 150;\n  his system, 153 _seq._ (see _Darwinism_);\n  his mode of arguing, 178;\n  dogmatism, 179;\n  pleads lack of knowledge as an argument, 182;\n  on single origin of every species, 210, 254;\n  on genealogy of the Horse, 259;\n  on the imperfection of the geological record, 264\n\nDarwinism, 149 _seq._;\n  false representations of, 149-151;\n  sketch of system, 151-157;\n  facts favouring, 158-160;\n  difficulties of, 160 _seq._;\n  explains no origins, 161;\n  ignores the prime factor, _ibid._;\n  improbabilities, 166, 173;\n  does not explain initial developments, 170 _seq._;\n  nor artistic ornamentation, 175;\n  specious arguments too easily forthcoming, 177;\n  does not account for organic progression, 187;\n  scientific opinions concerning, 198 _seq._, 281\n\nDawson, Sir J. W.--on the first origin of life, 208;\n  on the history of animal life, 223; on genealogy of the _Equid\u00e6_, 247;\n  of the _Cetacea_, 257;\n  of bats,\n  258;\n  on lack of pal\u00e6ontological evidence for evolution, 260\n\nDesign, evidence of, in Nature, 90, 97 _seq._;\n  Kant on the necessity of, 150\n\nDetermination of force, its necessity, 94-96, 114\n\nDeterminism of the will, 81 _seq._\n\nDevelopment of organic types, 146\n\nDicotyledons, appearance of, 220\n\nDiderot--on evidence of intelligence in Nature, 125\n\n_Dinotherium_, classification of, 259 n\n\nDogs, their vocal expression of emotions, 73\n\nDu Bois-Reymond, Herr,--on the \"Seven Enigmas,\" 31-33;\n  on the progress of human development, 68, 69;\n  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264\n\n_Dysteleology_, 190\n\n\nEar, structure of, 93\n\n_Electrons_, 42\n\nElephant and Tortoise of Hindu astronomy, 107\n\nEmbryology and Evolution, 158-160, 192 _seq._\n\n\"Energy,\" 23; conservation of, _ibid._;\n  dissipation of, 24 _seq._;\n  renovation of, 26-28\n\n\"Enigmas, the Seven,\" 32\n\n_Entropy_, 25\n\n_Equid\u00e6_. See _Horse_\n\nEther, a constituent of the universe, 36\n\nEvil, Origin of, the darkest of mysteries, 120\n\n\"Evolution,\" different meanings of term, 8;\n    as an operative law, 10-14;\n    eternal, 11;\n    as a philosophy, 22 _seq._;\n    formula of, 145\n  As a process, 45 _seq._\n  Organic, 142 _seq._;\n    essential characters of theory, 147, 206;\n    nature of evidence required, 208 _seq._;\n    history of in vegetable and animal kingdoms, 216 _seq._\n\nEye, origin of, 91, 154\n  Helmholtz, on defects of, 91 n.;\n    structure of, 155 n.;\n    evolution of, 168\n\n\nFabre, M.--on Darwin's facts, 200 n.;\n  on our ignorance of Nature, 203\n\nFaraday, Prof.--on gravitation, 125\n\nFinal causality (Teleology), 98 _seq._\n\nFirst Cause, the object of inference, 96, 97;\n  nature of as shown by reason, 270 _seq._\n\nFish, appearance of, 225;\n  problems presented by, 233\n\nFlight, problem of, 93\n\nFlower, Sir W.--on the extinct American horse, 254\n\nForce, nature of, 23\n\nFree-will, Prof. Haeckel on, 33, 81;\n  Dr. Johnson on, 84\n\nFuegians, mental likeness to ourselves, 72\n\n\nGarnett, Prof.--on force, 23\n\nGaudry, M.--on ancestry of whales, 257;\n of bats, 258;\n of proboscidians, 259\n\nGenera and species, 244 n.\n\n_Generatio aequivoca_, 65\n\nGeneration, mysteries of, 123 _seq._\n\nGeological formations, succession of, 213\n\nGeological record, 216, 264, _seq._\n\nGiraffe, evolution of, 154\n\nGlass, fortuitously discovered, 115\n\nGoethe--on \"iron law,\" 14\n\nGore, Dr. G.--on machinery as excluding idea of design, 118\n\n\"Grand Question,\" the, 96\n\nGrimthorpe, Lord (Sir E. Beckett)--on matter, 37; on the problem of flight, 93;\n  on evidences of purpose, 94;\n  on generation, 124;\n  on the structure of the eye, 155 n.\n\nGymnosperms, appearance of, 219\n\n\nHaeckel, Prof. E.--on \"rational view of the world,\" 10-14;\n  on the \"magic word evolution,\" 16;\n  on scientific method, 18, 20;\n  on the law of substance, 13, 23;\n  on the conservation of energy, 23, 24, 26;\n  on the \"Seven Enigmas,\" 33;\n  on the nature and properties of matter, 35, 39;\n  on the artificial manufacture of protoplasm, 59;\n  on free-will and determinism, 81;\n  on design in Nature, 90, 150;\n  on chance, 117;\n  on Monism, 128;\n  on annihilation as a desirable end, 130;\n  on the ultimate reality, 135;\n  unfounded claims on behalf of Darwin, 150;\n  bases arguments on lack of knowledge, 183;\n  on rudimentary organs and \"Dysteleology,\" 190;\n  on single origin of every species, 210;\n  on the appearance of the _Apetal\u00e6_, 221;\n  invents geological \"ante-periods,\" 236;\n  and intermediate forms, 261;\n  his pedigree of man, 261;\n  his method of solving the riddles of Nature, 264\n\nHeredity, 83, 99\n\nHerschel, Sir J.--on molecules as manufactured articles, 89;\n  on evidence of mind in Nature, 100;\n  on gravitation, 125\n\n_Hesperornis_, 171\n\nHeurtin, Marie, 77\n\n_Hippops_, 246, 252\n\nHird, Mr. D.--on the omnipotence of Evolution, 14;\n  on transformations of force, 129\n\nHolland, Sir H.--on structure of ear, 93\n\nHomer, a \"half-savage Greek,\" 69 n.\n\n_Homo alalus_, and _sapiens_, 81\n\nHorse, structure of, 94, 240\n  Genealogy of, 236, 241 _seq._\n\nHudson, Dr.--on neglect of\n  study of present life in favour of evolutionary speculations, 185\n\nHumboldt, W. von--on human speech, 76\n\nHutton, F. W.--on finite duration of the world, 2;\n  and of the universe, 28;\n  on dissipation of energy, 27 n.\n\nHuxley, Prof.--on finite duration of the world, 1;\n  on the nature of science, 5;\n  on \"Laws of Nature,\" 16-18;\n  on Evolution as a philosophy, 21, 22;\n  on matter, 38;\n  on the beginning of life, 46;\n  on faith and verification, 47;\n  on the fundamental principle of Evolution, 48;\n  on spontaneous generation, 50-54;\n  on protoplasm, 59, 60;\n  on structure of the Horse, 93;\n  on theism and creation, 100;\n  on teleology, 102;\n  on theism and chance, 103;\n  on the non-existence of chance, 111;\n  on seeming waste in nature, 121;\n  on mind and matter, 133;\n  on Saurian birds, 172;\n  on _Dysteleology_, 191;\n  on embryology and \u00e6tiology, 197;\n  on the Darwinian theory, 200, 201;\n  on facts as the only sound basis of theory, 204;\n  on the fundamental doctrine of organic evolution, 206;\n  on evolutionary evidence, 235;\n  on Haeckel's \"Ante-periods,\" 236;\n  claims pal\u00e6ontological evidence as demonstrative of Evolution, 239, 261;\n  his pedigree of the Horse, 236, 242 _seq._;\n  discussed, 244 _seq._\n\n_Hydra_, structure of, 146\n\n\n_Icthyornis_, 171\n\n_Inertia_, a property of matter, 39\n\nInference, 5 n.; 96, 272\n\nInsects, insular, as an argument for Natural Selection, 154, 167\n\nInvertebrate life, history of, 225\n\n\nJohnson, Dr.--on free-will, 84\n\nJulius C\u00e6sar, his polydactyle charger, 241\n\n\nKant--on necessity of design, 150\n\nKeller, Miss 77\n\nKelvin, Lord (Sir W. Thomson),--on the dissipation of energy, 25, 26;\n  his Law of Parsimony, 98;\n  on science and theism, 104, 278\n\n\nLaing, Mr. S.--on matter and motion, 35\n\nLamarck--on Nature's witness to God, 279\n\nLanguage, our \"Rubicon,\" 73;\n  distinctively human, 73-78;\n  essential character, 74;\n  theories as to origin, 79\n\nLankester, Prof. Ray--on evolution of _Proboscideae_, 259\n\nLaws of Nature--what? 16,\n  17, 86;\n  expressions of creative intelligence, 123, 277\n\nLewes, Mr.--on Laws of Nature, 86\n\nLiddon, Canon--on Laws of Nature, 16\n\nLife had a beginning, 46;\n  origin of, 46-66;\n  laws of, 90\n\nLink forms wanting in Nature, 208 _seq._, 228 _seq._\n\nLodge, Sir O.--on non-purposive Evolution, 202;\n  on anthropomorphism and the First Cause, 276\n\nLydekker, Mr. R.--on pedigree of the Horse, 248\n\nLyell, Sir C.--on the need of creation, 269\n\n\nMallock, Mr. W.--on human conduct, 139\n\nMammals, appearance of, 226;\n  problems suggested by, 255\n\nMan, faculties, 71 _seq._;\n  appearance of, 227\n\nMarsh, Prof.--on Evolution, 47;\n  on _Hippops_, 252\n\nMarshall, Prof. Milnes--on the teachings of Evolution, 15;\n  on embryology, 159;\n  on Haeckel's treatment of the same, 195\n\nMarsupials, first appearance, 226\n\n_Materia Prima_, 42 n\n\nMatter, 35;\n  indestructibility, 13, 23;\n  properties, 36 _seq._;\n  constitution, 37, 41 _seq._, 135;\n  and motion, 39;\n  dissolution of, 43;\n  and mind, 131 _seq._\n\nMax M\u00fcller, Prof.--on language, 73, 75\n\nMendel\u00e9eff's Periodic Law, 88\n\nMind and matter, connexion of, 131 _seq._\n\nMivart, Mr. St. G.--on the gulf between man and brute, 72;\n  on the essence of language, 74;\n  on theories as to its origin, 79;\n  on the ease with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;\n  on embryology of Salamander, 193;\n  on incompatibility of geological evidence with theory of Evolution by minute and gradual modification, 228, 230;\n  on evolution of the Horse, 255;\n  on the failure of apparent links, 267\n\nMole, evolution of, 181\n\nMolecules, 88;\n  \"manufactured articles,\" 89;\n  Clerk-Maxwell on, 90, 104\n\nMonism, 126 _seq._, 278;\n  and morality, 137;\n  and Truth, 138\n\nMonocotyledons, appearance of, 219\n\nMotion, as a property of matter, 39\n\n_Myriadism_, a better term for _Monism_, 136\n\n\n\"Natural Selection,\" what it is, 152 _seq._;\n  its powers discussed, 165 _seq._;\n  can produce nothing, 168;\n  a misnomer, 174. See _Darwinism_.\n\n\"Nature,\" 6\n\nNebular hypothesis, 11, 45, 48\n\nNewman, Cardinal--on the nature of laws, 17;\n  on law and causality, 99\n\nNewton, Sir I., his laws of motion, 39;\n  on evidence for theism, 103\n\n_North British_ Reviewer--on the limits of variation, 162;\n  on the facility with which Darwinian arguments can be found, 177;\n  on Darwinism and geographical distribution, 184;\n  on the \"maybe's\" of Darwinism, _ibid._;\n  on incompatibility of geological evidence with evolutionary theory, 228\n\n\nObrecht, Martha, 77\n\n_Ontogeny,_ 83 n.\n\nOrganic progression--and Darwinism, 186;\n  not evidenced by pal\u00e6ontology, 234\n\nOrgans, vestigial or rudimentary as an argument for evolution, 158, 189\n\n_Origin of Species_, appearance of, 151\n\nOwen, Sir R.--on the _Arch\u00e6opteryx_, 172\n\n\nPain and suffering, as an objection to Design, 119, 121\n\nPal\u00e6ontology--the only sound basis for evolutionary theory, 204;\n  its evidence adverse to progressive developments, 234\n\nPaley--his \"watch argument\" disproved by machine-made watches, 118\n\nPasteur, M.--on spontaneous generation, 50;\n  on initial temperature of life, 57 n.\n\nPeacock's feathers and Natural Selection, 155 n., 175\n\nPerrier, M. E.--on the evidence for Evolution, 237\n\nPettigrew, Mr.--on wings of birds, 93\n\n_Phylogeny_, 83 n.\n\n_Prothyle_, 42\n\nProtoplasm, 59-63\n\nPurpose and natural laws, 122\n\n\nQuatrefages, M. de--on life and non-life, 63;\n  on crystallization, 64;\n  on variation in Nature, 162;\n  on Darwinian argumentation, 180, 182, 183;\n  on embryology, 194;\n  on absence of intermediate forms in Nature, 212, 229\n\nQuinton, M.--new doctrine of life development, 57 n.\n\n\n_Rana opisthodon_--embryology, 195\n\nRayleigh, Lord--on atheistic science, 105;\n  on scientific authority, 109\n\nReason generates speech, not _vice versa_, 76\n\nReptiles, age of, 226\n\nReptilian birds, 171\n\nRivarol--on God and the world, 279\n\nRobin, M. Ch.--on Darwinism, 198\n\nRomanes, Prof.--on continuity and universality of natural causation, 29, 30;\n  on origin of language, 79;\n  on Monism, 129;\n  on the inadequacy of Natural Selection, 201;\n  on jealousy of admitting the Creator into creation, 277\n\nRoscoe, Sir H.--on artificial production of protoplasm, 62\n\n\nSalamander, embryological features, 193\n\n_Salix polaris_, its specific stability, 164, 222\n\nSaporta, Comte de--on parallel development of animal and vegetable life, 228;\n  on the problem of Creation, 268\n\nSchoolmen, the--on relation of soul and body, 132\n\nScorpion, maternal and unfilial instincts, 122\n\nSelous, Mr. E.--exemplifies Monistic doctrines, 139 n.\n\nSensation and consciousness,--origin of, 67\n\nSnakes, embryological features, 194\n\nSpecies, on evolutionary principles must each derive from a single origin, 210;\n  isolation of, 211;\n  and genera, 244 n.\n\nSpecific stability in Nature, 164\n\nSpencer, Mr. Herbert--on the beginning of life, 56;\n  his \"Formula of Evolution,\" 145;\n  on the process of organic evolution, 147\n\nSpontaneous Generation. See _Life, origin of_\n\nStephen, Sir L.--on materialism, 78\n\nStewart, Prof. Balfour--on finite duration of the world, 1;\n  on dissipation of energy, 25.\n  See also _Stewart and Tait_\n\nStewart and Tait--on self-evidence of theism, 104, 273\n\nStirling, Mr.--on protoplasm, 59, 61\n\nStokes, Sir G. G.--on evidence for design, 104\n\nSuarez--on creative power and natural law, 207\n\nSubstance, law of, 13, 14, 22, 23, 33, 41, 118\n\nSurvival of the fittest, and organic progression, 186\n\n\nTait, Prof. P.--On the scope of science, 18, 20;\n  on force and energy, 23 n.;\n  on the properties of matter, 39;\n  on \"pseudoscience,\" 40;\n  on scientific methods, 47;\n  on mechanical theories of life, 65.\n  See also _Stewart and Tait_.\n\nTeleology--98 _seq._\n\nTheism, 97 _seq._, 277\n\nThiselton-Dyer, Sir W.--on protoplasm, 60-62\n\n_Thyroid_ gland--its lesson, 191 n.\n\nTime, as a factor in Evolution, 80, 169\n\nTransformism, 142, etc.\n  See _Evolution, organic_\n\n_Triton alpestris_, 195\n\nTyndall, Prof.--on the material origin of life, 38;\n  on the beginning of life, 46;\n  on scientific method, 47;\n  on spontaneous generation, 54-56;\n  on the potentialities of matter, 54;\n  on mind and matter, 133\n\n\nUngulates, structure of limbs, 241\n\n\nVariation, the basis of Darwin's calculations, 162;\n  its limitations, _ibid._;\n  minute at each stage, 165\n\n_Verbum mentale_, 76\n\nVines, Prof. S. H.--on speculations and facts, 185;\n  on the present status of the Darwinian theory, 202;\n  on our present knowledge, 237\n\nVirchow, Prof.--on the beginning of life, 46;\n  on spontaneous generation, 65\n\nVogt, Carl--on embryology, 194;\n  on Haeckel's genealogies, 264\n\n\nWallace, Mr. A. R.--on breaches of natural causation, 64;\n  on the origin of life, _ibid._;\n  on the origin of animal life, 69, 70\n\nWeismann, Prof.--on our intellectual need for causality, 101\n\nWeldon, Prof.--on Huxley's scientific method, 21, 197\n\nWhales, appearance of, 257\n\nWhitney, Prof.--on origin of language, 79\n\nWill, the only cause known to us, 99, 100.\n  See also _Free-will_\n\nWilliamson, Prof. W. C.--on missing links, 231;\n  on an unrecognized factor in life-developments, 232;\n  on the geological history of fishes, 233;\n  on genealogy of the _equid\u00e6_, 251;\n  on lack of pal\u00e6ontological support for the Evolution theory, 260\n\nWings, as machines, 93\n\nWollaston, Mr.--on \"Nature\" as an agent, 108\n\nWorld, beginning of, 1\n\n\n_Zeuglodon_, 257\n\n\n\n\nA LIST OF WORKS\n\nMAINLY BY\n\nROMAN CATHOLIC\n\nWRITERS\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n                                                   PAGE\n\nTHE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY                               2\n\nTHE CATHOLIC CHURCH                                   3\n\nFOR THE CLERGY AND STUDENTS                           4\n\nBIOGRAPHY                                             6\n\nHISTORY                                               8\n\nTHE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHURCH                          8\n\nEDUCATIONAL                                           9\n\nSTONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES                      10\n\nPOETRY, FICTION, ETC.                                10\n\nNOVELS BY M. E. FRANCIS (MRS. FRANCIS BLUNDELL)      11\n\nWORKS BY THE VERY REV. CANON SHEEHAN, D.D.           11\n\nWORKS BY CARDINAL NEWMAN                             12\n\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.\n\n39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.\n\n91-93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK\n\n8 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY\n\n303 BOWBAZAR STREET, CALCUTTA.\n\n1909\n\nThe Westminster Library.\n\nA Series of Manuals for Catholic Priests and Students.\n\nEdited by the Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD, President of St. Edmund's\nCollege, and the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.\n\nTHE TRADITION OF SCRIPTURE: its Origin, Authority and Interpretation. By\nthe Very Rev. WILLIAM BARRY, D.D., Canon of St. Chads, Birmingham. Crown\n8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._\n\nTHE HOLY EUCHARIST. By the Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, Bishop of\nNewport. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._\n\nTHE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS: An Introduction to Hagiography. From the\nFrench of P\u00e8re H. DELEHAYE, S.J., Bollandist. Translated by Mrs. V. M.\nCRAWFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. _net._\n\nTHE PRIEST'S STUDIES. By the Very Rev. THOMAS SCANNELL, D.D., Canon of\nSouthwark Cathedral, Editor of _The Catholic Dictionary_. Crown 8vo. 3s.\n6d. _net._\n\nThe following Volumes are in Preparation:--\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR. By the Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.\n\nTHE STUDY OF THE FATHERS. By the Rev. Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. By the Right Rev. Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A.\n\nTHE BREVIARY. By the Rev. EDWARD MYERS, M.A.\n\nTHE INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. By the Rev. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.\n\nTHE MASS. By the Rev. ADRIAN FORTESCUE, Ph.D., D.D.\n\n\nThe Catholic Church.\n\nTHE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WITHIN. With a Preface by His Eminence CARDINAL\nVAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._\n\nLETTERS FROM THE BELOVED CITY. TO S. B. FROM PHILIP. By the Rev. KENELM\nDIGBY BEST. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d.\n\nCONTENTS.--Why Philip writes these Letters to S. B.--S. B.'s\nDifficulties fully stated--The Good Shepherd--I come that they may have\nlife--Feed my Lambs--Feed my Sheep--One Fold and One Shepherd--Christ's\nMother and Christ's\nChurch--Unity--Holiness--Catholicity--Apostolicity--Our Lady's\nDowry--War--Pacification.\n\nLENT AND HOLY WEEK: Chapters on Catholic Observance and Ritual. By\nHERBERT THURSTON, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._\n\nBISHOP GORE AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. By Dom JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 8vo.\nPaper covers, 6d. _net_; cloth, 1s. _net._\n\nASPECTS OF ANGLICANISM; or, Some Comments on Certain Incidents in the\n'Nineties. By Mgr. JAMES MOYES, D.D., Canon of Westminster Cathedral.\nCrown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._ Paper Covers 2s. _net._\n\n*** _This book is a free comment from a Roman Catholic\nstandpoint upon certain incidents in the religious life of Anglicanism\nin the 'Nineties. It deals incidentally with the Lambeth Judgment, and\nwith the question of continuity. It represents the criticism which, from\nthe point of view of history and theology, some of the later\ndevelopments of Anglicanism would suggest to a Roman Catholic mind._\n\nDIVINE AUTHORITY. By J. F. SCHOLFIELD, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge,\nlate Rector of St. Michael's, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._\n\nINFALLIBILITY: a Paper read before the Society of St. Thomas of\nCanterbury. By the Rev. VINCENT McNABB, O.P. Crown 8vo. Sewed, 1s.\n_net._\n\nSELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-DISCIPLINE. By the Rev. B. W. MATURIN. Crown\n8vo. 5s. _net._\n\nLAWS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._\n\nTHE INNER LIFE OF THE SOUL. Short Spiritual Messages for the\nEcclesiastical Year. By S. L. EMERY. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. _net._\n\n\nFor the Clergy and Students.\n\nTHE TRAINING OF A PRIEST: an Essay on Clerical Education. By the Rev.\nJOHN TALBOT SMITH, LL.D., President of the Catholic Summer School of\nAmerica. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._\n\nSCHOLASTICISM, Old and New: an Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy,\nMedi\u00e6val and Modern. By M. de WULF, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy\nand Letters, Professor at the University of Louvain. Translated by P.\nCOFFEY, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Maynooth College, Ireland. 8vo.\n6s. _net._\n\nOUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By SYLVESTER JOSEPH HUNTER, S.J. Crown\n8vo. Three vols., 6s. 6d. each.\n\nTHE SERMON OF THE SEA, and Other Studies. By the Rev. ROBERT KANE, S.J.\nCrown 8vo. 5s. net.\n\nSTUDIES ON THE GOSPELS. By VINCENT ROSE, O.P., Professor in the\nUniversity of Fribourg. Authorised English Version, by ROBERT FRASER,\nD.D., Domestic Prelate to H.H. Pius X. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._\n\nESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE. By AUSTIN O'MALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.,\nPathologist and Ophthalmologist to Saint Agnes's Hospital, Philadelphia;\nand JAMES J. WALSH, Ph.D., LL.D., Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the\nNew York Polytechnic School for Graduates in Medicine. 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n_net._\n\n*** _The term \"Pastoral Medicine\" may be said to represent that\npart of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those\ndivisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his\npractice. This book is primarily intended for Roman Catholic\nconfessors._\n\nTHE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. By Rev. MICHAEL CRONIN, M.A., D.D., Ex-Fellow,\nRoyal University of Ireland; Professor, Clonliffe College, Dublin. 8vo.\n\nVol. 1., General Ethics. 12s. 6d. net.\n\nTHE KEY TO THE WORLD'S PROGRESS: an Essay on Historical Logic, being\nsome Account of the Historical Significance of the Catholic Church. By\nCHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._\n\nPopular Edition. Paper covers, 6d.\n\n*** _The object of this book is to give to the logic and\nhistory of Newman an economic or sociological setting, and thus to show\nthat \"for the explanation of World-history we must first have the true\ntheory of the Christian Church and her life through eighteen centuries\".\nPart I. states briefly the problems which the philosophy of history\nseeks to resolve. Part II. presents the solution offered by Christianity\nand takes the form of an historical analysis of the principles by which\nthe Church has been guided in her relations with the world._\n\n\"IN THY COURTS\" (La Vocation \u00e0 la Vie Religieuse). Translated from the\nFrench of LOUIS VIGNAT, S.J. By MATTHEW L. FORTIER, S.J. 18mo. 1s. 6d.\n_net._ In paper covers, 1s. _net._\n\nCORDS OF ADAM: a Series of Devotional Essays with an Apologetic Aim. By\nthe Rev. THOMAS J. GERRARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._\n\n\"I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bonds of\nlove.\"--_Osee_ xi. 4.\n\nTHE OLD RIDDLE AND THE NEWEST ANSWER. An Enquiry how far Modern Science\nhas altered the aspect of the Problem of the Universe. By JOHN GERARD,\nS.J., F.L.S. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._\n\nPopular Edition. Paper Covers. 6d.\n\nTHE MONTH; A Catholic Magazine. Conducted by FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF\nJESUS. Published Monthly. 8vo. Sewed, 1s.\n\nINDEX TO THE MONTH, 1864-1908. Arranged under Subjects and Authors. 8vo.\nCloth. 3s. 6d. _net._ Interleaved with Writing Paper. 5s. _net._\n\n\nBiography.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF ST. DOMINIC, FOUNDER OF THE FRIAR PREACHERS. By AUGUSTA\nTHEODOSIA DRANE. With 32 Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER COMPANIONS. With a\nTranslation of her Treatise on Consummate Perfection. By the same\nAuthor. With 10 Illustrations. Two vols. 8vo. 15s.\n\nA MEMOIR OF MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D. (AUGUSTA THEODOSIA DRANE),\nsome time Prioress Provincial of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters\nof St. Catherine of Siena, Stone. With portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nLIFE OF ST. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, DUCHESS OF THURINGIA. By the COUNT DE\nMONTALEMBERT, Peer of France, Member of the French Academy. Translated\nby FRANCIS DEMING HOYT. Large Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. _net._\n\nHISTORY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, Founder of the Congregation of the\nMission (Vincentians), and of the Sisters of Charity. By Monseigneur\nBOUGAUD, Bishop of Laval. Translated from the Second French Edition by\nthe Rev. JOSEPH BRADY, C.M. With an Introduction by His Eminence\nCARDINAL VAUGHAN, late Archbishop of Westminster. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.\n_net._\n\nHENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES. By ALICE SHIELD. With an\nIntroduction by ANDREW LANG. With Photogravure Frontispiece and 13 other\nIllustrations. 8vo. 12s. 6d. _net._\n\nEXPLORERS IN THE NEW WORLD BEFORE AND AFTER COLUMBUS, and THE STORY OF\nTHE JESUIT MISSIONS OF PARAGUAY. By MARION McMURROUGH MULHALL, Member of\nThe Roman Arcadia. With pre-Columban Maps. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. _net._\n\nTHE LIFE AND TIMES OF CARDINAL WISEMAN. By WILFRID WARD. With 3\nPortraits. Two vols. Cr. 8vo. 10s. _net._\n\nAUBREY DE VERE: a Memoir based on his unpublished Diaries and\nCorrespondence. By the same Author. With Two Photogravure Portraits and\n2 other Illustrations. 8vo. 14s. _net._\n\nTEN PERSONAL STUDIES. By the same Author. With 10 Portraits. 8vo. 10s.\n6d. _net._\n\nCONTENTS.--Arthur James Balfour--Three Notable Editors: Delane, Hutton,\nKnowles--Some Characteristics of Henry Sidgwick--Robert, Earl of\nLytton--Father Ignatius Ryder--Sir M. E. Grant Duff's Diaries--Leo\nXIII.--The Genius of Cardinal Wiseman--John Henry Newman--Newman and\nManning--Appendix.\n\nSOME PAPERS OF LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, 12th BARON, COUNT OF THE HOLY\nROMAN EMPIRE, Etc. With a Preface by the Dowager LADY ARUNDELL OF\nWARDOUR. With Portrait. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\nHISTORICAL LETTERS AND MEMOIRS OF SCOTTISH CATHOLICS, 1625-1793. By the\nRev. W. FORBES LEITH, S.J. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 2\nvols. Medium 8vo. 24s. _net._\n\nESSAYS. By FATHER IGNATIUS RYDER. Edited by the Rev. F. BACCHUS. 8vo.\n\nCONTENTS.--_Biographical and Historical._ 1. A Jesuit Reformer and\nPoet--2. Revelations of the After-World (St. Brigit)--3. Savonarola--4.\nM. Emery--5. The Great Schism. _General._--6. Auricular Confession--7.\nThe Pope and the Anglican Archbishops--8. Ritualism, Romanism, etc.--9.\nSome Ecclesiastical Miracles--10. Irresponsible Opinion--11. The Ethics\nof War--12. The Passion of the Past--13. Reminiscences of a Jail\nChaplain.\n\n\nHistory.\n\nHISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN NORTH AMERICA: Colonial and Federal.\nBy THOMAS HUGHES of the same Society. Royal 8vo.\n\nText. Volume I. From the First Colonization, 1580, till 1645. With 3\nMaps and 3 Facsimiles. 15s. _net._\n\nDocuments. Volume I. Part I. Nos. 1-140 (1605-1838). 21s. _net._\nDocuments. Volume I. Part II. [_In the Press._\n\nTHE INQUISITION: a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power\nof the Church. By the Abb\u00e9 E. VACANDARD. Translated from the French by\nthe Rev. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, C.S.P. Crown 8vo. 6s. _net._\n\nTHE LIFE AND TIMES OF BISHOP CHALLONER, 1691-1781. By EDWIN H. BURTON,\nD.D., F.R.Hist.S., Vice-President of St. Edmund's College. With 34\nPortraits and other Illustrations. In two volumes. 8vo.\n\nTHE DAWN OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL IN ENGLAND, 1781-1803. By BERNARD WARD,\nF.R.Hist.S., President of St. Edmund's College, Ware. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s.\n_net._\n\n\nThe Beginnings of the Church.\n\nA Series of Histories of the First Century.\n\nBy the Abb\u00e9 CONSTANT FOUARD, Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the\nFaculty of Theology at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated by GEORGE F. X.\nGRIFFITH.\n\nTHE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. A Life of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.\nWith an Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. With 3 Maps. Two vols. Crown\n8vo. 14s.\n\nPopular Edition. 8vo. 1s. _net._ Paper Covers. 6d. _net._\n\nST. PETER AND THE FIRST YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY. With 3 Maps. Crown 8vo.\n9s.\n\nST. PAUL AND HIS MISSIONS. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.\n\nTHE LAST YEARS OF ST. PAUL. With 5 Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 9s.\n\nST. JOHN AND THE CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\n\nEducational.\n\nA HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. By E. WYATT-DAVIES, M.A. With\n14 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nOUTLINES OF BRITISH HISTORY. By the same Author. With 85 Illustrations\nand 13 Maps. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.\n\nA HISTORY OF IRELAND FOR AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. From the Earliest\nTimes to the Death of O'Connell. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. With specially\nconstructed Map and 160 Illustrations, including Facsimile in Full\nColours of an Illuminated Page of the Gospel Book of MacDurnan, A.D.\n850. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.\n\n_This is the authorised Irish History for Catholic Schools and Colleges\nthroughout Australasia._\n\nHISTORICAL ATLAS OF INDIA, for the Use of High Schools, Colleges and\nPrivate Students. By CHARLES JOPPEN, S.J. 26 Maps in Colours. Post 4to.\n3s. net.\n\nDELECTA BIBLICA. Compiled from the Vulgate Edition of the Old Testament,\nand arranged for the use of Beginners in Latin. By a SISTER OF NOTRE\nDAME. Crown 8vo. 1s.\n\nPRINCIPLES OF LOGIC. By G. H. JOYCE, S.J., M.A., Oxford, Professor of\nLogic at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. 8vo. 6s. 6d. _net._\n\nPARLEZ-VOUS FRAN\u00c7AIS? OU LE FRAN\u00c7AIS ENSEIGN\u00c9 D'APR\u00c8S LA M\u00c9THODE\nDIRECTE. Par KATHLEEN FITZGERALD. Illustr\u00e9 par N. M. W. Crown 8vo. 1s.\n\nGRAMMAR LESSONS. By the PRINCIPAL OF ST. MARY'S HALL, Liverpool. Crown\n8vo. 2s.\n\nTHE CLASS TEACHING OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION. By the same Author. Crown\n8vo. 2s.\n\nQUICK AND DEAD? To Teachers. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. 1s. 6d.\n\n\nStonyhurst Philosophical Series.\n\nEdited by RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.\n\nLOGIC. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.\n\nFIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.\n\nMORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown\n8vo. 5s.\n\nGENERAL METAPHYSICS. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.\n\nPSYCHOLOGY, EMPIRICAL AND RATIONAL. By MICHAEL MAHER, S.J., D.Litt.,\nM.A. Lond. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.\n\nNATURAL THEOLOGY. By BERNARD BOEDDER, M.A., S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.\n\nPOLITICAL ECONOMY. By CHAS. S. DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\n\nPoetry, Fiction, etc.\n\nA MYSTERY PLAY IN HONOUR OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD. By the Rev. ROBERT\nHUGH BENSON. With Illustrations, Appendices, and Stage Directions. Cr.\n8vo. 2s. 6d. _net._\n\nWords only. With a few notes. 6d. net.\n\nSTORIES ON THE ROSARY. By LOUISE EMILY DOBR\u00c9E. Parts I., II., III. Crown\n8vo. 1s. 6d. each.\n\nA TORN SCRAP BOOK. Talks and Tales illustrative of the \"Our Father\". By\nGENEVI\u00c8VE IRONS. With a Preface by the Rev. R. HUGH BENSON. Crown 8vo.\n2s. 6d.\n\nMARIALE NOVUM: a Series of Sonnets on the Titles of Our Lady's Litany.\nBy MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. Printed on hand-made paper, and\nbound in art green canvas, with cover design in blue and gilt, gilt top.\nPott 4to. 3s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 5s. _net._\n\nONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. WILFRID WARD. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nOUT OF DUE TIME. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nGREAT POSSESSIONS. By the same Author. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\n\nNovels by M. E. Francis (Mrs. Francis Blundell).\n\nSIMPLE ANNALS. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nDORSET DEAR: Idylls of Country Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nLYCHGATE HALL: a Romance. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nCHRISTIAN THAL: a Story of Musical Life. Cr. 8vo. 6s.\n\nTHE MANOR FARM. With Frontispiece by Claude C. du Pr\u00e9 Cooper. Crown 8vo.\n6s.\n\nFIANDER'S WIDOW. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nPASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nYEOMAN FLEETWOOD. Crown 8vo. 3s. _net._\n\nWorks by the Very Rev. Canon Sheehan, D.D.\n\nLISHEEN; or, The Test of the Spirits. A Novel. Cr. 8vo. 6s.\n\nLUKE DELMEGE. A Novel. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nGLENANAAR: a Story of Irish Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nTHE BLINDNESS OF THE REVEREND DR. GRAY; or, the Final Law: a Novel of\nClerical Life. 6s.\n\n\"LOST ANGEL OF A RUINED PARADISE\": a Drama of Modern Life. Crown 8vo.\n3s. 6d.\n\nPARERGA: being a Companion Volume to \"Under the Cedars and the Stars\".\nCrown 8vo. 7s. 6d. _net._\n\nEARLY ESSAYS AND LECTURES. Cr. 8vo. 6s. _net._\n\nCONTENTS.--_Essays._ Religious Instruction in Intermediate Schools--In a\nDublin Art Gallery--Emerson--Free-Thought in America--German\nUniversities (Three Essays)--German and Gallic Muses--Augustinian\nLiterature--The Poetry of Matthew Arnold--Recent Works on St.\nAugustine--Aubrey de Vere (a Study). _Lectures._ Irish Youth and High\nIdeals--The Two Civilisations--The Golden Jubilee of O'Connell's\nDeath--Our Personal and Social Responsibilities--The Study of Mental\nScience--Certain Elements of Character--The Limitations and\nPossibilities of Catholic Literature.\n\n\nCardinal Newman's Works.\n\n1. SERMONS.\n\nPAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.\n\nSELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR, from the\n\"Parochial and Plain Sermons\". Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nFIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, between 1826\nand 1843. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nSERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nDISCOURSES TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nOCCASIONAL SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\n2. TREATISES.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DEFINED AND ILLUSTRATED. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nUNIVERSITY TEACHING considered in nine discourses. Being the First Part\nof \"The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated\". With a Preface by\nthe Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. _net._ Leather, 3s. _net._\n\nA GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. AN INDEXED SYNOPSIS OF NEWMAN'S\n\"GRAMMAR OF ASSENT\". By the Rev. JOHN J. TOOHEY, S.J. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\n\n3. HISTORICAL.\n\nHISTORICAL SKETCHES. Three vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.\n\nVOL. I.--The Turks in their Relation to Europe--- Marcus Tullius\nCicero--Apollonius of Tyana--Primitive Christianity.\n\nVOL. II.--The Church of the Fathers--St. Chrysostom--Theodoret--Mission\nof St. Benedict--Benedictine Schools.\n\nVOL. III.--Rise and Progress of Universities (originally published as\n\"Office and Work of Universities\")--Northmen and Normans in England and\nIreland--Medi\u00e6val Oxford--Convocation of Canterbury.\n\nTHE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. Reprinted from \"Historical Sketches\". Vol.\nII. With a Preface by the Rev. JOHN NORRIS. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s.\n_net._ Leather, 3s. _net._\n\n4. ESSAYS.\n\nTWO ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nDISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\n1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture\nand the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame? 6. An\nArgument for Christianity.\n\nESSAYS, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two vols., with notes. Crown 8vo. 7s.\n\n1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4. De la Mennais. 5.\nPalmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican\nChurch. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Huntingdon. 10.\nCatholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Antichrist of Protestants.\n12. Milman's View of Christianity. 13. Reformation of the XI. Century.\n14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble.\n\n5. THEOLOGICAL.\n\nTHE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nSELECT TREATISES OF ATHANASIUS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.\n\nTRACTS: THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\n1. Dissertatiuncul\u00e6. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.\nIgnatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.\nCyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture.\n\n6. POLEMICAL.\n\nTHE VIA MEDIA OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.\nVol. I. Prophetical Office of the Church. Vol. II. Occasional Letters\nand Tracts.\n\nDIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I.\nTwelve Lectures. Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed\nVirgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.\n\nPRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nAPOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nPocket Edition. Fcp. 8vo. Gilt Top. 2s. 6d. _net._ Leather, 3s. 6d.\n_net._\n\nPopular Edition. 8vo. Sewed, 6d. _net._\n\n_The \"Pocket\" Edition and the \"Popular\" Edition of this book contain a\nletter, hitherto unpublished, written by Cardinal Newman to Canon\nFlanagan in 1857, which may be said to contain in embryo the \"Apologia\"\nitself._\n\n7. LITERARY.\n\nVERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE DREAM OF GERONTIUS. 16mo. Sewed, 6d. Cloth, 1s. _net._\n\nSchool Edition, with Introduction and Notes by Maurice Francis Egan,\nA.M., LL.D., Professor of English Language and Literature in the\nCatholic University of America, Washington, D.C. With Portrait. Crown\n8vo. 1s. 6d.\n\nPresentation Edition, with an Introduction specially written for this\nEdition by E. B(L). With Photogravure Portrait of Cardinal Newman, and 5\nother Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo, bound in cream cloth, with gilt\ntop. 3s. _net._\n\nWith Fac-similes of the original Fair Copy and of portions of the first\nrough draft. Together with a Biographical Sketch of the Rev. John\nGordon, of the Congregation of the Oratory, to whom the poem is\ninscribed, containing an appreciation by Cardinal Newman. Imperial\nfolio. 31s. 6d. _net._\n\n*** _This issue is restricted to 525 copies, of which 500 are\nfor sale._\n\nLOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nCALLISTA: A Tale of the Third Century. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\n\n8. DEVOTIONAL.\n\nMEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. Part I. Meditations for the Month of May.\nNovena of St. Philip. Part II. The Stations of the Cross. Meditations\nand Intercessions for Good Friday. Litanies, etc. Part III. Meditations\non Christian Doctrine. Conclusion. Crown 8vo. 5s. _net._\n\nAlso in Three Parts as follows. Fcap. 8vo. 1s. _net_ each.\n\nPart I. THE MONTH OF MAY.\n\nPart II. STATIONS OF THE CROSS.\n\nPart III. MEDITATIONS ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.\n\n\nLETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE\nENGLISH CHURCH. With a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's\nrequest, by ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s.\n\nADDRESSES TO CARDINAL NEWMAN, WITH HIS REPLIES, 1879-81. Edited by the\nRev. W. P. NEVILLE (Cong. Orat.). With Portrait Group. Oblong crown 8vo.\n6s. _net._\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Collected Essays_, i. 35.\n\n[2] _Lectures on Evolution_, Cheap Edition, p. 16.\n\n[3] _Conservation of Energy_, \u00a7 210, p. 153.\n\n[4] F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., _The Lesson of Evolution_ (1902), pp. 9-11.\n\n[5] _Nineteenth Century_, February, 1889. p. 173.\n\n[6] This term is now applied almost exclusively to _physical science_,\nor that whose province is the observation of phenomena and inferences\ndirectly deducible from them. To avoid confusion, this sense of the word\n\"Science\" will be here adopted: it is nevertheless objectionable\ninasmuch as it implies that--as Professor Huxley following Hume would\nhave it--sound knowledge is restricted, outside the field of\nmathematics, to \"experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and\nexistence.\" But although all premisses or data of inference come to us\nfirst through the gates of sense, there is much, beyond the limits\nwithin which sensible experience is confined, to a knowledge of which\ninference can lead us, and of which we become certain before experience\ncan verify what we have thus learnt. Thus a chipped flint or a fragment\nof pottery is universally recognized as evidencing the work of man: a\nsingle page of Virgil would suffice--apart from all other\ninformation--to prove its author to have been both a poet and a scholar:\nthe shipwrecked mariner cast on an unknown shore argued soundly from the\nsight of a gibbet that he had reached a civilized land ruled by law. But\nmore than this, Science herself proceeds on this principle to the\nrecognition not only of forces, the character of which is known by\nprevious experience, but of others concerning which she knows nothing at\nall, except through the very effects from which she argues. Thus, as all\nbodies left free are found to draw towards one another in a certain\nmode, it is concluded with absolute confidence that there is a force\nmaking them do so, although this is in itself utterly imperceptible, and\nis known only by the way in which bodies behave under what must be its\ninfluence. Yet, who questions the existence of Gravitation? In like\nmanner, the phenomena of light force us to admit the existence of the\nEther, as the medium through which its waves are transmitted. Yet, we\nare compelled to attribute to this medium qualities apparently so\nincompatible that, as the late Lord Salisbury said, Ether remains, \"a\nhalf discovered entity.\" But little as we can realize its nature, we\nhave no doubt that such a medium exists.\n\n[7] \"Value of the Natural History Sciences\" (_Lay Sermons_), p. 75.\n\n[8] Italics his.\n\n[9] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, English translation,\n1903, Preface, p. vii.\n\n[10] _Riddle of the Universe_, Cheap English Edition, p. 2.\n\n[11] _ibid._, p. 85.\n\n[12] And also, it should be added, travelling bodily through space with\na movement of \"translation.\"\n\n[13] _Ibid._\n\n[14] _Ibid._, p. 2.\n\n[15] The 15th Chapter of Haeckel's _Natural History of Creation_ is\ndevoted to this point.\n\n[16] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 32.\n\n[17] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 5.\n\n[18] _Ibid._, p. 78.\n\n[19] _Ibid._, p. 86.\n\n[20] _Ibid._, 134.\n\n[21] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of\nRuskin Hall, Oxford, p. 230.\n\n[22] _Presidential Address_, _Section D_, _Zoology_, Leeds, 1890.\n\n[23] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 2.\n\n[24] _Ibid._, p. 83.\n\n[25] \"Pseudo-Scientific Realism,\" _Collected Essays_, i, 68, 74-78.\n\n[26] Newman, _Grammar of Assent_, p. 72. A \"Law of Nature,\" as has\nalready been said, is simply a statement of what _de facto_ has always\nbeen found to occur under certain conditions, and may consequently be\nexpected again. It is obvious however that such expectation is\nimplicitly based on the existence of some cause capable of ensuring the\nresult.\n\n[27] \"The Teaching of Natural Philosophy,\" _Contemporary Review_, Jan.,\n1878.\n\n[28] _Lay Sermons_, p. 83.\n\n[29] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.\n\n[30] See Wasmann \"Gedanken zur Entwicklungslehre,\" _Stimmen aus\nMaria-Laach_, vol. 63, p. 298.\n\n[31] _Contemporary Review_, ut sup., p. 301.\n\n[32] Professor Weldon, F.R.S., in the _Dictionary of National\nBiography_.\n\n[33] _Collected Essays_, v. 41.\n\n[34] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 75.\n\n[35] Professor Garnett in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. By \"Force\" is\nunderstood \"any cause which tends to alter a body's natural state of\nrest, or of uniform motion in a straight line.\" Of the nature of such\ncauses science professes to know very little, and as Clerk-Maxwell, who\nknew as much as most men, sang apropos of a lecture of Professor Tait's:\n\n    ... Tait writes in lucid symbols clear one small equation;\n    And Force becomes of Energy a mere space-variation.\n\n\n[36] Balfour Stewart, _Conservation of Energy_, \u00a7 115; by Clerk-Maxwell,\n_apud_ Garnett, _ut sup._\n\n[37] Tyndall, _Fragments of Science_, 5th Edition, p. 23.\n\n[38] _Conservation of Energy_, \u00a7 209.\n\n[39] Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin.\n\n[40] March 29, 1888.\n\n[41] So of another effort in the same direction Capt. Hutton tells us:\n\"The last champion in the field is Professor A. W. Bickerton, who thinks\nhe has found a way in which this dismal conclusion, as he considers it,\nmay be averted. But he is not very sure about it, and has to assume:\nfirst, that space contains now and always will contain, a large quantity\nof cosmic dust scattered through it with some approach to uniformity;\nand secondly, that the Universe consists of an infinite number of what\nhe calls 'cosmic systems,' travelling through space, constantly throwing\noff dust in all directions and occasionally colliding. As all this is\npure assumption and highly improbable, I cannot think that Professor\nBickerton has brought forward any serious objection to the theory of the\ndissipation of energy, and his hypothesis must be added to the list of\nfailures.\" (_Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14, _n._)\n\n[42] _Lesson of Evolution_, p. 14.\n\n[43] _Darwin and after Darwin_, p. 17.\n\n[44] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.\n\n[45] _\u00dcber die Grenzen der Naturerkennens: Die Sieben Weltr\u00e4thsel_,\nLeipzic, 1882.\n\n[46] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 64.\n\n[47] Du Bois-Reymond does not say that they are soluble, but only that\nhe cannot pronounce them \"transcendental.\"\n\n[48] Samuel Laing, _Modern Science and Modern Thought_, Cheap Edition,\np. 19.\n\n[49] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 86.\n\n[50] _Ibid._\n\n[51] P. 78.\n\n[52] P. 64.\n\n[53] _Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 23.\n\n[54] _Belfast Address_, 1874.\n\n[55] _Lay Sermons._ \"On the Physical Basis of Life,\" p. 143.\n\n[56] Professor Tait, _Properties of Matter_, \u00a7 108.\n\n[57] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 301.\n\n[58] _Story of Creation_, p. 11.\n\n[59] _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1903, p. 399.\n\n[60] Or \"primal stuff.\" This looks remarkably like the old _Materia\nPrima_ of the Schoolmen translated into Greek.\n\n[61] _Ibid._ _The Revelations of Radium._\n\n[62] _Ibid._, p. 398.\n\n{_Note._--It is often assumed that the composite character of the\natom--if fully established--must upset the Atomic Theory. This is not\nso; all that the new hypothesis does is to go further back in accounting\nfor the Atomic Theory, and for all practical purposes things remain\nexactly as they were; except, indeed, that the dissolution of matter\ndoes away with what was held as one of the most assured conclusions of\nscience.}\n\n[63] The Nebular Hypothesis itself is, of course, far from being an\nestablished certainty, and is not devoid of grave difficulties. Into\nthese, however, it is not necessary now to enter.\n\n[64] _Apud_ Gaynor, _The New Materialism_, p. 83.\n\n[65] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, \"Biology.\"\n\n[66] _Apud_ Gaynor, p. 84.\n\n[67] Professor Marsh.\n\n[68] Professor Dewar at Belfast, 1902.\n\n[69] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, 3rd Edition, p. 6.\n\n[70] Gaynor, p. 102.\n\n[71] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.\n\n[72] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 305.\n\n[73] Being the year in which this passage was written.\n\n[74] Viz. that of the derivation of life from life alone, as opposed to\n_Abiogenesis_, or its production from lifeless matter.\n\n[75] See _Fragments of Science_, \"Spontaneous Generation,\" for a full\naccount.\n\n[76] March 18, 1863. _Life and Letters_, i. 352.\n\n[77] April 30, 1870. _Ibid._ ii. 17.\n\n[78] _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 238.\n\n[79] _Lay Sermons_, p. 18.\n\n[80] _Evolution and the Origin of Life_, 1874, p. 23.\n\n[81] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, \"Biology.\"\n\n[82] _Fragments of Science._ \"Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address.\"\n\n[83] _Ibid._ \"Scientific use of the imagination.\"\n\n[84] _Fragments of Science_, \"Spontaneous Generation.\"\n\n[85] _Ibid._ \"Rev. James Martineau and Belfast Address.\"\n\n[86] _Ibid._ \"Vitality.\"\n\n[87] _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1886, p. 769.\n\n[88] Italics mine.\n\n[89] It has been established by Pasteur and others that the highest\ntemperature at which organic life is possible is 45\u00b0 _Centigrade_ (113\u00b0\n_Fahrenheit_). When the globe had cooled to this point from its\nprimitive molten condition, the epoch of terrestrial life commenced.\n\nAccording to what is perhaps the latest theory, that of M. Quinton, the\ntemperature immediately below this, 44\u00b0 _Centigrade_, remains always the\nbest for living things, and those creatures are highest in the scale of\nlife, and consequently the most developed, which have contrived means of\nkeeping their internal heat at, or about, this level, despite the\nrefrigeration of their surroundings. In their blood-heat M. Quinton\ntherefore finds an absolute rule for fixing the relative rank of organic\nforms, and the date of their appearance; those whose blood is warmest\nbeing the most recently evolved. The results of this new system are\nsufficiently startling. Birds are to be classed as the highest and\nnewest of all; while man, with the other _Primates_, has to take a much\nlower place, the ungulates, including the horse and donkey, and the\ncarnivora, as dogs and cats, being his superiors. (_La Revue des Id\u00e9es_,\nJanuary 15, 1904, pp. 29 seq.)\n\n[90] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.\n\n[91] To Sir J. D. Hooker, March 29, 1863.\n\n[92] To V. Carus, November 21, 1866.\n\n[93] To D. Mackintosh, February 28, 1882.\n\n[94] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 6.\n\n[95] _As regards Protoplasm_, p. 21.\n\n[96] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, \"Biology.\"\n\n[97] Printed in _Lay Sermons_.\n\n[98] _Nature_, June 5, 1902, p. 121.\n\n[99] _Id. ibid._\n\n[100] _Op. cit._ p. 27.\n\n[101] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1887.\n\n[102] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 66.\n\n[103] _Op. cit._ ii. 63.\n\n[104] _Darwinism_, p. 474.\n\n[105] The other stages presenting similar difficulties are the 5th and\n6th of Du Bois-Reymond's Enigmas, viz. the introduction of sensation or\nconsciousness (animal life), and of rational thought and speech.\n\n[106] _Contemporary Review_, January, 1878, p. 298.\n\n[107] _Die sieben Weltr\u00e4thsel_, D. 82.\n\n[108] Professor Huxley, it must be remarked, speaks of Homer as a \"half\nsavage Greek\" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 12), and intimates a mild wonder that\nsuch a being could share our feelings in presence of nature to so large\nan extent as his poems testify. This is undoubtedly a fine example of\nthe good conceit of ourselves which the pursuit of science is rather apt\nto produce.\n\n[109] _Darwinism_, p. 475.\n\n[110] _Descent of Man_, c. ii.\n\n[111] _Ibid._ 54.\n\n[112] In his paper read before the British Association at Oxford in\n1847.\n\n[113] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 89.\n\n[114] See Mivart, _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 166.\n\n[115] See Louis Arnould, _Une \u00e2me en prison_, and article \"An imprisoned\nSoul,\" by the Ctesse. de Courson, _The Month_, January, 1902, p. 82.\n\n[116] _Descent of Man_, i. 57.\n\n[117] i.e. ape-like.\n\n[118] Quoted by Romanes, _Mental Evolution in Man_.\n\n[119] _Ibid._, p. 371.\n\n[120] _Origin of Human Reason_, p. 385.\n\n[121] _Op. cit._ p. 379.\n\n[122] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 46.\n\n[123] \"Ontogeny\" signifies the genesis of the individual, \"Phylogeny\"\nthat of the race. Accordingly, when rendered into ordinary language,\ndeclarations such as these, unsupported as they are by any evidence, are\nfound to mean that the development of the individual, tells us all about\nthe development of the individual, and the development of the race all\nabout that of the race. Is it really supposed, as it would seem to be,\nthat such points are scientifically settled by translating terms into\nGreek?\n\n[124] _Lavengro_, passim.\n\n[125] _Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy_, p. 38.\n\n[126] _British Association Lecture_, 1873.\n\n[127] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 93.\n\n[128] _Origin of Species_ (5th Edition), p. 226.\n\n[129] Afterwards (April 17, 1863) Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker,\n\"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the\nPentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by\nsome wholly unknown process.\"\n\n[130] At a later period Mr. Darwin modified his views as to what he\nstill termed \"that wondrous organ the human eye,\" writing thus (_Descent\nof Man_, ii. 166): \"We know what Helmholtz, the highest authority in\nEurope on the subject, has said about the human eye: that if an optician\nhad sold him an instrument so carelessly made, he would have thought\nhimself fully justified in returning it.\"\n\nIt is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (_Vortr\u00e4ge und\nReden_, i. 253, etc., English Edition, \"_Popular Scientific Lectures_,\"\npp. 219, etc.), adding that \"the eye has every possible defect that can\nbe found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to\nitself.\" These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a\ngood deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the\nfirst place, that in speaking as above he did so \"from the narrow but\nlegitimate point of view of an optician.\" Having then enumerated all the\ndefects in question, he continues--\"In an artificial camera, all these\nirregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not\nso, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of\nextreme difficulty to detect them.\" He adds that men in general not only\nare unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced\nto credit it. Also that they \"almost always affect those portions of the\nfield of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our\nattention.\" What is still more to the point, he observes, that the\ndefects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is\npractical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical\ninstrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that\nthe eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or\ntelescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they\nlack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes.\n\"As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds\nHelmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very\nlimitations set to its defects.... A man of any sense would not chop\nfirewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the\noptical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to\ninjury and slower in its development.\" Helmholtz therefore concludes\nthat the eye is a product which \"the wisest Wisdom may have\npre-designed.\"\n\nIt thus comes very much to Pope's solution:\n\n    Why has not man a microscopic eye?\n    For this plain reason: man is not a fly,--\n\nand in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about\nreturning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap,\nunworthy of such a man.\n\n[131] _Life of C. Darwin_, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin,\nNovember 23, 1859.\n\n[132] _Animal Locomotion_ (International Scientific Series), p. 180.\n\n[133] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 69.\n\n[134] _Lectures on Evolution_ (Cheap Edition), p. 37.\n\n[135] _Philosophical Basis of Evolution_, passim.\n\n[136] By a _Final Cause_ is meant the predetermined result or end,\ntowards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the\nultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the\n_Final Cause_ of striking a match: while the striking of the match is\nthe _Efficient Cause_ producing the light.\n\n[137] _Grammar of Assent_, p. 69.\n\n[138] _Familiar Lectures_, p. 458.\n\n[139] \"On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':\" _Life of C.\nDarwin_, ii. p. 187.\n\n[140] _Nineteenth Century_, No. 2. Reprinted in _Lectures and Essays_,\np. 388 (2nd Edition).\n\n[141] _Studies in the Theory of Descent_, vol. ii. p. 710; _vid.\nEdinburgh Review_, October, 1902, _The Rise and Influence of Darwinism_.\n\n[142] _Ut sup._ p. 201.\n\n[143] _Sic._ The sense evidently requires either that the \"not\" should\nbe deleted, or \"prove\" be substituted for \"disprove\" in the preceding\nline. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from which I\nquote, but likewise in the _Critiques and Addresses_, p. 307, where this\npassage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's _Natural\nHistory of Creation_, under the title of _The Genealogy of Animals_.\n\n[144] _Life and Letters_, ii. 195.\n\n[145] _Ibid._, p. 467.\n\n[146] _De Natura Deorum_, ii. 4.\n\n[147] _Principia, Schol. Gen._\n\n[148] _Unseen Universe_, p. 47.\n\n[149] _Burnett Lectures_, p. 327.\n\n[150] See report of his words emended by himself, _Nineteenth Century\nand After_, June, 1903.\n\n[151] Bradford, 1873.\n\n[152] Montreal, 1884.\n\n[153] _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, 3rd Series, vol. v. p.\n138.\n\n[154] \"Reception of 'Origin of Species,'\" _ubi sup._ p. 199.\n\n[155] November 26, 1860.\n\n[156] May 22, 1860.\n\n[157] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.\n\n[158] _The Scientific Basis of Morality_, by George Gore, LL.D., F.R.S.,\np. 31.\n\n[159] May 22, 1860.\n\n[160] Bain, _De vi physica_, p. 76.\n\n[161] _Origin of Laws of Nature_, p. 61.\n\n[162] Lord Grimthorpe, _op. cit._ 85.\n\n[163] Letter to the _Times_, June 2, 1903\n\n[164] The term _Monism_, invented by Wolf, originally bore a different\nmeaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to signify\nequally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind, and the\nidealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor Haeckel, as\nwill be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two names for one\nthing.\n\n[165] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_ (English translation),\np. 60.\n\n[166] _Ibid._, p. 10.\n\n[167] _Ibid._, p. 3.\n\n[168] _Mind and Motion._\n\n[169] _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of\nRuskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.\n\n[170] _Ibid._, p. 74.\n\n[171] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 51.\n\n[172] _Presidential Address_, _Section A_, _British Association_,\nNorwich, 1868.\n\n[173] \"Mr. Darwin's Critics.\" (_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 283.)\n\n[174] _Confession of Faith of a Man of Science_, p. 19.\n\n[175] To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is illustrated\nby Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting _Bird Watching_, where he\ncasually observes, as a matter of course, that the \"life-part\" of a\ntom-tit is as important in the sum of things as Napoleon's (p. 248), and\ndeclares elsewhere, more formally (p. 335)--\"Surely, a beautiful\nbutterfly, that, for all time, charms--and raises by charming--some\nnumber of those who see it, does more good on this earth than any single\nman or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no 'foot-prints on the sands of\ntime.' Homer, for instance, has left his _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and\nthese have been, and still are, mighty in their effects. But let them\nonce perish, and Homer will be caught up and overtaken by almost any\nbird or butterfly--even a brown one.\"\n\n[176] _First Principles._\n\n[177] _Riddle of the Universe_, p. 92.\n\n[178] As to the term \"Chance\" which he frequently used, Mr. Darwin wrote\nin one place (_Origin of Species_, Opening passage of c. v.): \"I have\nhitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and multiform\nwith organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with\nthose in a state of nature--had been due to chance. This, of course, is\na wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our\nignorance of the cause of each particular variation.\" It is obvious,\nhowever, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we have\nheard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for it\nis absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of \"Chance\" quoted\nin the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind refuses to\nregard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know nothing, for\nthat is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact, instinctively\nrecognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if not due to\npurpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to the true and\nlegitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed it.\nOccasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to\ndefend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a\nfactor.--_Vid. sup._, c. xii.\n\n[179] Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his system to\n_species_, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to the\nproduction of new _genera_, and even of divisions of the organic\nkingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus--apart from the most famous instance of\nall, treated by Darwin himself in his _Descent of Man_--it is now a\ncardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of\nlife are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of\ndevelopment, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one\nidentical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain\nthat Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock,--and, still\nfarther on, that at least all placental mammals--bats and whales,\nelephants and mice--trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.\n\n[180] _Origin of Species_, v.\n\n[181] _Ibid._, c. vii.\n\n[182] _Ibid._, c. vi.\n\n[183] \"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold\nall over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now some\nsmall trifling particulars of structure often make me feel very\nuncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I\ngaze at it, makes me sick.\" (_C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860._)\n\n[184] It will help to understand the nature of the task thus imposed\nupon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes on this\nsubject (_Origin of the Laws of Nature_, p. 103):\n\n\"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular\nshapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays\nof light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our\neye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of\nproper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring\nall the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point\nwithout confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made\nmachines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of\nthem and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass\nmelted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been\nbuilt up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar\nand complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand,\nthough we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they\nare persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again\nsome of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of\nanimals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a\nmembrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of\nbrush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of\nlight; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be\ndivided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be\nas long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish\nthem; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a\nbrush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of\nall these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in\nthat organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living\ncreatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet.\"\n\n[185] _Ibid._, c. vii.\n\n[186] Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin supposed the\nworkmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact and accurate\nthan usually is the case,--there remains quite enough of architectural\nmerit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to increase the\nmystery that the insects should thus appear to strive towards an ideal,\nwhich they frequently fail to satisfy.\n\n[187] _Ranunculus ficaria._ It is remarkable that in the season of 1904\nthis plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in which\nsuch fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.\n\n[188] _Origin of Species_, c. xiv.\n\n[189] _Descent of Man_, Part I, c. i.\n\n[190] _Biological Lectures and Addresses_, p. 202.\n\n[191] _Charles Darwin et ses pr\u00e9curseurs Fran\u00e7ais_ (1870), p. 120.\n\n[192] _North British Review_, June, 1867. Professor Huxley likewise\ndeclared this criticism to be of \"real and permanent value.\" (_Critiques\nand Addresses_, 252.)\n\n[193] _La vie des \u00eatres anim\u00e9s_, p. 102.\n\n[194] Presidential Address Geologists' Association (_Proceedings_, vol.\nv. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in _Contemporary Review_, February, 1877,\nunder the title \"Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom.\"\n\n[195] See APPENDIX A. p. 280a.\n\n[196] _Variation in Animals and Plants_, p. 343. By H. M. Verney\n(International Scientific Series, 88).\n\n[197] J. W. Barclay, _New Theory of Organic Evolution_, p. 90.\n\n[198] Huxley, _Lectures and Essays_ (Popular Edition), pp. 28, seq.\n\n[199] Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely\ndiscarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The\nwing of _Hesperornis_, for example, is now declared to be an instance of\n_degeneration_ from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be\nconsidered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the\ndescendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has\nyet been discovered. (See Pycraft's _Story of Bird Life_, p. 190.)\n\n[200] _Philosophical Transactions Royal Society_, 1863, p. 36.\n\n[201] This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, _Final Causes_, 2nd\nEnglish Edition, p. 245.\n\n[202] _Descent of Man_, ii. 156.\n\n[203] _Tablet_, May 26, 1888, p. 837.\n\n[204] _Lessons from Nature_, p. 297.\n\n[205] _Descent of Man_, _i._ p. 57.\n\n[206] In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the suggestion is\nput in form of a question: \"May not some unusually wise ape-like animal\n...?\"\n\n[207] _Origin of Species_, c. vi.\n\n[208] _Ibid._, c. viii.\n\n[209] It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only be\nmentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have no\ndescendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of\nthe whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their\nexistence.\n\n[210] _Descent of Man_ (1st Edition), ii. 385.\n\n[211] _Ibid._, i. 107.\n\n[212] _Ibid._, ii. 386.\n\n[213] _Charles Darwin et ses pr\u00e9curseurs Fran\u00e7ais_, p. 151\n\n[214] _Ibid._, p. 167.\n\n[215] _La vie des \u00eatres anim\u00e9s_, p. 161.\n\n[216] Saint-Hilaire.\n\n[217] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. p. 82.\n\n[218] _North British Review_, July, 1867, p. 316.\n\n[219] P. 313.\n\n[220] November 5, 1903, _Journal of Botany_, January, 1904, p. 32.\n\n[221] Dr. Hudson, see _Nature_, February 20, 1890, p. 375.\n\n[222] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.\n\n[223] _Op. cit._ p. 59.\n\n[224] _History of Creation_, English Edition, ii. 353.\n\n[225] _The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's \"Nat\u00fcrliche\nSch\u00f6pfungs-Geschichte.\"_ The _Academy_, 1869. Reprinted in _Critiques\nand Addresses_, and _Darwiniana_ (Collected Works).\n\n[226] The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is unknown,\nwas supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found, however, that\nits removal entails _myxoedema_, a condition closely allied to\ncretinism.\n\n[227] \"Geological Contemporaneity.\" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 206.)\n\n[228] Mr. Mivart, _Types of Animal Life_, p. 113.\n\n[229] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 13.\n\n[230] Mr. Mivart, _Tablet_, April 21, 1888.\n\n[231] The Mexican _Axolotl_, the _Triton Alpestris_, and probably\nothers.\n\n[232] _Nature_, March 24, 1892.\n\n[233] i.e. the Science of Causes.\n\n[234] _Dictionnaire encyclop\u00e9dique des sciences m\u00e9dicales._\n\n[235] Thus having described in detail a series of experiments as to the\neffects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larv\u00e6 of various\n_hymenoptera_, M. Fabre writes:\n\n\"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqu\u00e9s par\nDarwin.\" (_Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 330.)\n\n[236] _Journal of Linnean Society_, vol. xix.\n\n[237] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903, p. 218.\n\n[238] _Revue de Philosophie_, April 1, 1904.\n\n[239] _Souvenirs entomologiques_, 3rd Series, p. 317.\n\n[240] For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.\n\n[241] _Nature_, September 10, 1891.\n\n[242] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species._\n\n[243] _De opere sex dierum_, ii. 10, n. 12.\n\n[244] _Modern Idea of Evolution_, p. 97.\n\n[245] Darwin (_Origin of Species_, p. 274, 6th Edition) considers it\n\"incredible\" that the same identical species should originate twice even\nunder the very same conditions. In the following passage, Haeckel\naffirms such unity of origin in respect of a most remarkable species of\nwide-reaching affinities.\n\n\"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata,\nfrom the _Amphioxus_ upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia,\nreptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single\nvertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and\nhighly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of\nprocesses or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a\nvertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the\ncourse of the earth's history.\" (Address to Munich meeting of German\nAssociation, vid. _Nature_, October 4, 1877.)\n\n[246] _Origin of Species_ (6th Edition), p. 265.\n\n[247] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii., 76.\n\n[248] _History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of Evolution_\n(1898).\n\n[249] Harebell.\n\n[250] According to the most recent system of classification, the\nMonopetal\u00e6, now re-christened _Sympetalae_, are ranked above the\nPolypetal\u00e6, the family of the _Compositae_ being highest of all.\n\n[251] _Proceedings_, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The substance of\nthis address appeared as an article in the _Contemporary Review_,\nFebruary, 1877, entitled, \"Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom.\"\n\n[252] See Appendix B. p. 284.\n\n[253] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_ (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.\n\n[254] These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are supposed by\nmost naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear presently to\nhave become extinct, no traces of them having been found in the chalk, a\nformation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor Marsh tells us\non this subject (_Nature_, September 27, 1877, p. 471):\n\n\"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence,\neither in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at\nessentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of\nMammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens\nhave been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and\nall are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in\nAmerica, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at\npresent only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the\ngenus _Dromotherium_, supposed to be related to the insect-eating\n_Myrmecobius_, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe\nhave yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet\nnone of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of\ncretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world.\"\n\n[255] P. 118.\n\n[256] P. 105.\n\n[257] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. 34.\n\n[258] _Genesis of Species_, p. 129.\n\n[259] _Charles Darwin_, p. 185.\n\n[260] _Genesis of Species_, p. 130.\n\n[261] _Types of Animal Life_, 149.\n\n[262] _Genesis of Species_, p. 132.\n\n[263] \"Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural\nSelection and Evolution\" (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,\nManchester, p. 251).\n\n[264] \"Succession of Life on Earth.\" (_Half-hour Recreations_, 2nd\nSeries, p. 329.)\n\n[265] _Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College, Manchester, p. 220, note.\n\n[266] See note, p. 238.\n\n[267] \"Geological Contemporaneity,\" 1862. (_Lay Sermons_, p. 222.)\n\n[268] \"Pal\u00e6ontology and Evolution,\" 1876. (_Critiques and Addresses_, p.\n182.)\n\n[269] P. 187.\n\n[270] P. 192.\n\n[271] _Genealogy of Animals._\n\n[272] _Natural History of Creation._\n\n[273] _Le Transformisme_, pp. 337-340.\n\n[274] _Lectures on Evolution_, New York, 1876. Cheap Edition, p. 43.\n\n[275] _Coming of Age of the Origin of Species_, etc.\n\n[276] _Essays on Controverted Questions_, p. 450.\n\n[277] \"Utebatur autem equo insigni, pedibus prope humanis, et in modum\ndigitorum ungulis fissis; quem natum apud se, cum haruspices imperium\norbis terrae significare domino pronuntiassent, magna cura aluit.\"\n(Suetonius, _Julius_, 61.)\n\n[278] The _radius_ and _ulna_ are the two bones of the forearm above the\nwrist; the _tibia_ and _fibula_ the corresponding bones of the leg above\nthe ankle. In the horse, the _ulna_ and _fibula_ are almost, but not\nquite, lost.\n\n[279] Animals and plants are placed in different _species_ when the\ndifferences between them are only _relative_; in different _genera_,\nwhen such differences are _absolute_. Thus, for example, the size of\nteeth is considered relative; the number of teeth absolute.\n\n[280] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 3rd Series, vol. 43\n(1892), p. 351.\n\n[281] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, p. 119.\n\n[282] _Types of Animal Life_, 205.\n\n[283] Nicholson and Lydekker's _Manual of Pal\u00e6ontology_, ii. 1362.\n\n[284] _Origin of Species_, c. xi.\n\n[285] _Lydekker_, p. 1361.\n\n[286] _Evolution of the Horse_, 12.\n\n[287] \"Succession of Life on Earth\" (_Recreations in Popular Science_,\n2nd Series, p. 339).\n\n[288] British Museum (_Nat. Hist._) _Guide to fossil mammals and birds_,\np. 38.\n\n[289] _American Journal of Science and Art_, 3rd Series, vol. 43 (1892),\np. 351.\n\n[290] _The Evolution of the Horse_, p. 16.\n\n[291] _Lydekker_, _ut sup._ p. 1363.\n\n[292] Sir W. Flower, _The Horse_, p. 74.\n\n[293] \"It is a consequence of the theory of Natural Selection that\nidentity of structure involves community of descent; a given result can\nonly be arrived at through a given sequence of events; the same\nmorphological goal cannot be reached by two independent paths.\" Milnes\nMarshall, _Biological Lectures_, 247.\n\n[294] _Origin of Species_, c. xi. \"Geological Succession of Organic\nBeings.\"\n\n[295] _Tablet_, April 21, 1888, p. 637.\n\n[296] _Catalogue of Mammals_, etc., _ut sup._ p. 38.\n\n[297] _Chain of Life_, p. 222.\n\n[298] _Les Enchainements du Monde Animal_ ... Mammif\u00e8res Tertiaires.\n\n[299] _Chain of Life_, 227.\n\n[300] It is the \"fingers\" of the bat's \"hand\" which support the wing\nmembrane. Hence the scientific name _Cheiroptera_.\n\n[301] E.g. Dinotherium giganteum and Elephas meridionalis. (Vid. Gaudry,\n_op. cit._ 169.)\n\n[302] Lecture at Royal Institution, January 2, 1904.\n\n[303] A remarkable instance of the need of caution is furnished by the\nhistory of the Dinotherium itself. From the teeth, first found, Cuvier\nset down the animal as a monster Tapir. Then, a whole skull being\ndiscovered, Herr Kaup of Darmstadt, commenting upon the danger of such a\nproceeding, himself classed the beast among the Edentata (Sloths, etc.),\nand afterwards among the Hippopotami. Buckland and Strauss thought it\nmust have been an aquatic creature; Blainville and Pictet labelled it a\nManatee, or sea-cow. (Vid. Gaudry, _op. cit._ 187-9.)\n\n[304] _Op. cit._ p. 191.\n\n[305] Milnes Marshall, _Lectures on Darwinian Theory_, p. 66.\n\n[306] See Appendix C. p. 285.\n\n[307] _Modern Ideas of Evolution_, c. iv.\n\n[308] \"Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural\nSelection and Evolution.\" (_Essays and Addresses_, Owen's College,\nManchester, p. 200.)\n\n[309] _History of Creation_, ii. 92, English Edition.\n\n[310] _Ibid._, p. 295.\n\n[311] _Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. 76.\n\n[312] As an instance M. de Quatrefages cites Haeckel's own words, from\nhis _Anthropogenie_. \"The Vertebrate Ancestor No. 15, akin to the\nSalamanders, must have been a species of Saurian (Lizard). There remains\nto us no fossil relic of this animal; in no respect did he resemble any\nform actually existing. Nevertheless, comparative anatomy and ontogeny\nauthorize us in affirming that he once existed. We will call this animal\n_Protamnion_.\"\n\n[313] _Ibid._, p. 122.\n\n[314] _Revue Scientifique_ (1886), p. 486.\n\n[315] _Ibid._ (1877), I. 1101.\n\n[316] _Origin of Species_, c. x.\n\n[317] _Genesis of Species_, p. 134.\n\n[318] _Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme_, p. vi.\n\n[319] _Op. cit._, p. 288.\n\n[320] _Life of Darwin_, ii. 193.\n\n[321] _Epistle_ I--to Pope.\n\n[322] _Hibbert Journal_, January, 1903.\n\n[323] _Order of Nature_, p. 239.\n\n[324] _Thoughts on Religion_, p. 123.\n\n[325] _Presidential Address_, British Association, 1871.\n\n[326] _Syst\u00e8me Analytique des Connaissances positives de l'homme_\n(1830), pp. 8, 43.\n\n[327] _North American Slime Moulds_, Introduction, p. II.\n\n[328] Bloud's _Science et Religion_, No. 431, pp. 50, seq.\n\n[329] _Trait\u00e9 de Microbiologie_, I., p. 253. Also the Magazine\n_Broteria_ (Lisbon), Vol. vi., 1907, Botany, p. 23.\n\n[330] See _Nature_, June 4, 1903, p. 113, in notice of a paper on the\nsubject by Professor F. W. Oliver and Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S.\n\n[331] _Linnean Society's Proceedings_, May 3, 1906.\n\n[332] See the _Congress Report_, vol. iv.\n\n[333] _Transactions American Philosophical Society_ (N.S.), 18, 1896,\npp. 119, 120.\n\n[334] _The Origin and Influence of the Thorough-bred Horse._ Cambridge,\n1905.","title":"The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":77086}