An exposition of fallacies in the hypothesis of Mr. Darwin.

Front matter

Neher sSrettpnat de phe er, a SS hear oh y q itr s BS Wee Lats, oT ; v plete

“ban?

pie

Chapter I. Introductory

PAGE Dr. Hooker's statement as to the position of Darwinism at Norwich.—Not borne out by facts.—Agassiz.—His opinions upon Darwinism.— Other European writers. —M. Flourens. —The ‘Atheneum’ upon Dr. Hooker.—The Odium Theologicum.—The importance of the subject as affecting human thought and action. —The reviewer in the ‘ Edinburgh Quarterly.’—Division of the subject . : : : 5 7 ‘ : : ; eat

Chapter II, The Physical Argument

Darwinism as it receives support or otherwise from the assumed correlation of the Physical and Vital Forces.

Importance of the above argument to Darwinians.—Professor Tyndall on Physical and Vital Foreces.—His views disproved.— Evidence of Professor Beale.—Dr. Stirling.—Professor Haughton and Professor Tait. ; ‘ : ; : ‘ . 16

Chapter III. The Physico-psychical Argument

Darwinism as it is presumed to derive support from the doctrine of Evolution formulated by Mr. Herbert Spencer.—Mr. Spencer’s ( definition of Evolution.—The difficulties of arguing against Darwinism.—The ‘ Unknowable.’— Ultimate Scientific ideas.—Space and Time.—Reason consists in power of Comparison.—Existence of good and evil explained.—Motion.—Force.—Sir Isaac Newton’s explanation of the ‘why’ of gravitation.—Consciousness.

vi CONTENTS.

PAGE —Man not conscious of his own existence.—The dogma disproved.—Questions which spring from Mr. Herbert Spencer’s arguments ; ; : : : ‘ ‘ 4 ‘ » vS7

Chapter IV. The Physico-psychical Argument Continued

Consciousness definite and indefinite.—The ‘ Knowable.—Examination of Mr. Spencer’s formula of Evolution.—Its unsoundness proved.—Mr. Spencer's theory of Development.—Van Baer’s views.—Embryological resemblances not likenesses.—The subject discussed.— Professor Owen on the Embryo.—Mr. Spencer's doctrine of physiological units as a substitute for selective cell power.—-The mythical nature of physiological units . ‘ ey |

Chapter V. The Physico-psychical Argument Continued

Special Creation : its denunciation by Mr. Spencer.—‘ Special Creation’ a ‘ Belief, not an hypothesis.—This ‘Belief’ supported by Science.—In the beginning Special Creation must have been exercised even according to the theory of the Evolutionist.— Which is true?—The teleological argument best supported by facts.—Primitive notions of markind.—Mr. Spencer’s views considered.— Mistaken beliefs4Line between Evolution and Special Creation defined.} Creation not a pseud-idea, but an ultimate fact in Science, and ‘ unthinkable.’—The teleological argument.—The reasoning of Galileo compared with the theory of Evolution.—Every theory of Evolution must admit a special creative act.—The doctrine of Special Creation highly intellectual, and a strengthener of the moral sense.—The question of cruelty and parasitism in nature not a proof of malevolence-—Some of the mysteries of nature not to be accounted for.—Overwhelmed by the goodness of the Deity . : : : . ‘ . 659

Chapter VI. The Physico-psychical Argument Concluded

Mr. Spencer’s substitute for special creation.—Its hollowness and unsoundness pointed out.—Evolution not cognate with potentiality.—The argument from classification.—Its want of plausi-

CONTENTS.

bility —Language in man not correlated with that of animals.— The argument from Embryology.—The argument from Morphology.—Segmentation.—A gassiz.— His beautiful teleological views. ——General and special homologies.—The argument from Distribution.—Van Baer’s illustration——Anabas scandens.—Astronomers.—Geology dead against Mr, Spencer. : ‘

CHAPTER VII. Vii

PAGE

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT. THE HYPOTHESIS OF DARWIN AS SET FORTH BY HIMSELF AND PRINCIPAL SUPPORTERS.

Mr, Darwin’s works.—‘ Animals and Plants under Domestication.’ —Dogs.—The discoveries of M. Flourens fatal to Mr. Darwin’s entire theory on this point— Domestic cats.—The horse.—The ass. —Pigs.—Cattle-—Sheep.—Goats.—Rabbits on Porto Santo.— Reasons for their change in colour and size.—Domestie pigeons.— Their descent.—Erroneous deductions drawn from monstrosities. —The rock pigeon of Madeira.—Buffon on pigeon fanciers.—M. Flourens’ comments.—Pigeon monstrosities not comparable with variations in nature.—Domestic fowls.—Other birds and plants treated by Mr. Darwin . ; : y ‘ ‘ ‘ ;

Chapter VIII. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Inheritance.—Pangenesis—Various gemmule theories.—Buffon, Bonnet, Owen, Spencer.—Mr. Darwin’s theory discussed at length.—Matter, its properties indicative of the limitation of human reason.—Hikel’s similarity of a speck of protoplasm and a human germ considered and disproved.—Illustrations given opposed to Hikel’s view.—The diamond.—The protophyton.—Objection does not apply to ‘ Analogies’ and ‘ Homologies,’ —The human hand and paddle of whale.—General conclusions .

Chapter IX, The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Crossing.—Its effects in modifying or producing new races.—Selection by man.—Cavses of variability considered.—Use and disuse.—Changed habits.—Acclimatisation, and Spencer’s view of vili CONTENTS.

PAGE use and disuse.—Why are the blacksmith’s muscles of arm developed inordinately ?—Spencer’s view of the action of wind in increasing rising of sap refuted by Darwin.—Hard palms and soles of feet of foetuses in utero.—Robert Knox upon use and disuse.—Acquired deformities not congenital nor hereditary.— Chinese foot as evidence.—Nathusius.—His doctrine of use and disuse.—The horse’s foot.—Mr. Darwin’s opinion that such a structure was assisted by natural selection refuted.—The horse in time.—Proof of final causes . ; : : , : eel

Chapter X. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

The Descent of Man.—Founded upon Hikel’s genetic views.—Resemblances between man and inferior animals not a sound mode of reasoning in favour of their genetie connection-Human disease not propagated to animals, as stated by Darwin.—Mr. Woolner’s ear a myth.—Therefore its assumed proof ot man’s cocked ears untrue.-—The semilunar fold.—Smell.—Erroneous statement of Darwin as to the faculty in Man.—Griesinger’s theory of Mind.—Mr. Darwin’s views upon human hair.—Their genetic connection with animals unsound.—‘ Wisdom teeth.’— Darwin’s view of their degradation.—Structure of animals and man said by Darwin to be identical and proof of a common descent . : ; ; : 4 ; ; ; : seo

Chapter XI. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Mental powers.—Mr. Darwin’s opinion that in man and the lower animals there is no fundamental difference considered.—The emotions.—Animals have pleasure, pain, happiness and misery, terror, suspicion, courage, revenge, wonder, curiosity, imitation, attention, memory, imagination and reason.—Language.—Mr. Darwin’s erroneous notions about the songs of birds drawn from bird-fanciers.—Young birds not taught by their parents to sing. —Mr. Darwin’s ideal monkey that laid the foundation of its language.—Self-consciousness, individuality, abstraction.—General ideas passed over by Darwin, though considered by recent writers as making a complete distinction between man and animals.— Atoms of brain not atoms of mind —Belief in God.—Religion. —Love of dog for master supposed by Darwin to be a distant approach to religious feeling . ; ‘ , . . » 027

CONTENTS. | ix

Chapter XII

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT CONTINUED. PAGE The Moral sense.—The ‘I ought’ and the ‘I ought not.’—Difficulties insurmountable to Mr. Darwin.—His ‘ probabilities.’—The moral sense acquired from ‘ social instincts. —Mr. Darwin’s four reasons considered.—Moral feelings acquired, according to Mill. —Facts in support of this giew.—Hunger called an ‘ instinct’ by Darwin.—The illustration unsound.—Hunger a physiological event produced by a known cause.—Instinctive sympathies.— Mind or force, or both, lead the social community.— Cruelty of ignorant uneducated savages.—lIts cause a want of education.— Communistic Socialism inferior to Socialism of Gorilla or other monkeys.—‘ Public opinion.’-— Louse mode of argument.—Public opinion much higher than ‘instinctive sympathy.’—The grandest of all moral forces the result of reason, and not instinct.—Habit strengthening instincts considered and refuted.—Fundamental difference between Instinct and Reason.—Men reared like hive bees.—Malapropos illustration.—Least action.—Rey. Professor

Chapter XIII. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Man’s development.—Variation in Muscles: Professors Turner, Macalister and Wood upon.—-Such variations probably the result of ‘least action.—Mr, Darwin’s opinion that this variation is due to ‘ reversion.’ —Professor Haughton’s opinion of Darwinism. —Reasons for believing in the principle of ‘ least action,’ as applied to variation in Muscles.—Mr. Wood’s ‘ factor’ discovered. —Correlated variation, rate of increase, and natural selection considered.—Hair, Tail . 2 : ; . 2 A . 146

Chapter XIV. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

The Development of the Intellectual Faculties.—Great gulf to pass. —No link.—Mr. Darwin’s views.—The ‘ affinities and genealogy of Man.’—Man descended from the Ape, and an animal like the larva of Ascidian.—The principle of like action being performed x CONTENTS.

PAGE by similar means, ignored by Darwin and his disciples.—Unity of human race essential to Darwinism; not the unity of the Mosaic account.—No remains ever found of animal intermediate between Man and Ape.—Time required for Darwin’s evolution quite upsets his theory.—Mr. Darwin’s parallel between Ant and Coccus.—Instinct and Reason.—The distinction laid down clearly by the ‘Quarterly Review.’ é > ‘ : ‘ : . 156

CHAPTER XY.

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

Catarrhine and Platyrrhine Monkeys.—Mr. Darwin’s necessity for selecting the former in man’s pedigree.—Structural difference in teeth, tails, and tendons.—Professor Owen on the dental differences of Monkeys and Man.—Teeth formed in reference to man’s speech.—Microscopic structure.—Difference in Apes and Man.— Difficulties in Evolution and Natural Selection on this point insurmountable.—Mr. Darwin’s twelve small and unimportant points of resemblance between Man and the higher Apes considered.—The teleological plan.—Fossil Monkeys. — Fourteen species known. — Bonnet Monkeys.—Apes.—Cebus. — Higher cranial deyelopment.—The so-called Anthropoidal Apes.— Human and monkey hair.—Man’s descent from the Invertebrata.—Larva of Ascidian.—Modus operandi of God in Creation.—Reflections . ; : ; aakse

Chapter XVI. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Sexual selection —Battles of Males.—Law of Battle that of Nature, not sexual selection.—Numerical proportion of sexes.—Polygamy.—Modifications of Male.—Laws of inheritance. — No Sexual Selection in Lower Invertebrata.—Why, then, have they brilliant colours?—Wings of Insects.—Feathers of Birds.— Sea Slugs. — American Maple. — Mollusca,— Worms, — Crustacea.—Arachnida.— Myriapoda. — Insects, viz.: Thysanoura, Diptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera . . : . . rai . . 187

CONTENTS.

Chapter XVII. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

PA

Lepidoptera.—Mode of Pairing.—Disproved by actual observation.—The Emperor Moth.—Males taken in great numbers by exposing the Female.—F acts strongly against Sexual Selection.— Fine instance of adaptation to cireumstances of existence, quoted from Mr. Wallace in the Kallima butterfly.—Beauty gained for protection, according to Darwin and Wallace.—-Mr. St. George Mivart upon ‘ so-called’ mimicry.—Goes to the root of Natural and Sexual Selection.—Vertebrates.—Fishes.—Amphibious Reptiles—Birds . . : , .

7 CHAPTER XVIII.

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

Sexual selection, concluded,—Birds, continued.—Their colour.— How produced physiologically.— Known facts contrasted with Darwin’s theory.—Mammals.—Monkeys and so-called Anthropoid Apes.—Man.—His superiority to Woman.—How gained.— Darwin’s conclusions discussed and disproved.—Music.—How acquired.—Bestial origin according to Darwin.—Objections.— Conclusion of Sexual Selection ; : , : : 2

Chapter XIX

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT CONTINUED. Mr. Darwin's Supporters.

Mr. Alfred B, Wallace.{Creation by Law. +The Duke of Argyll. —Reign of Law.—-The Universe, according to Wallace, self-regulating.—Madagascar Long-nosed Moths.—The Angrecum sesquipedale and its nectary.—Mr. Wallace’s mode of making Moth’s noses.—River beds. —Humming Birds.—Beauty of form and colour.—Separately and for themselves provided for in Nature.—Types or patterns in nature.—The Vertebrate type as adapted to infinite variety of life.—Difficulties of Mr. Wallace in reconciling beauty of form or colour upon his principles with Mr, Darwin’s maxim, Natura non facit saltuwm,—Mr. Wallace’s inapt reference to Bull-dogs and Greyhounds to xi

GE bo o “I xii CONTENTS.

Chapter XX. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Continued

Mr. Darwin's Supporters.

PAGE

Mr. Alfred B. Wallace, continued.—Philosophy of Birds’ nests.— Not built by instinct, according to Wallace.—M. Flourens’ remark upon such a theory.—The Arab’s tent.—The Patagonian hut.—Built by ‘imitation.—The Egyptian mud houses.—The Pyramids.—Birds’ nests.—Material of—Swallows build their nests of mud because they fly over ponds in search of flies.— Absurdity of such opinions.—Young birds learn to build their nests from their parents.—Mr. Wallace’s separation from Darwing in regard to the Creation of Man.—The subject considered.—Its teleological significance . ‘ : ‘ : ° : . 261

Chapter XXI

THE VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARGUMENT CONTINUED. Mr. Darwin's Supporters—Professor Huxley.

Professor Huxley’s high position in the scientific world.—Has failed to prove the truth of Evolution.—Does not entirely accept the hypothesis of Darwin.—Follows Hakel and Herbert Spencer. {Embryology his great basis of argument. }-Universality of Oviparous reproduction. — The point disputed. — Protozoa.— Fishes in the earliest strata.—Had the Vertebrate type thus early been evolved ?—Agassiz’ opinion.—Closeness of structural affinity.—Supposed similitude of embryonic forms.—Difference between Man and Apes.—The greater difference between the highest and lowest Quadrumana disproved from Professor Huxley’s own figures.—Objection to the Ape-Man evolution theory.—Mr. Huxley’s psychological criticisms.—His illustration of reason and instinct unsound.— Objection to Mr. Huxley’s style of argument.—The nature of the present contest, and the necessity for mutual forbearance between the advocates of opposite theories . ‘ : : : : ; ary os % . 268

CONTENTS. xiii

Chapter XXII. The Variation And Natural Selection Argument Concluded

Mr. Darwin’s Supporters.

PAGE

Sir Charles Lyell. — Conversion of Sir C. Lyell. — His labours great in Geology.—Charm in his earlier writings consisting in their genuine teleological tone.-—The 10th edition of the ‘ Principles. —The scene changed and the charm gone.—M. Gaudry.— His Fossil discoveries. —Sir C. Lyell’s comments thereon.— Facts in favour of Darwinism divided into five heads.—The Dryopithecus.—The Mesopithecus of Pikermi.—Difference between species defined by man and those defined by Nature.—The great Law of Species. —Absurdity of drawing great conclusions from slight or assumed differences between fossil and recent forms.— Illustration.—Variation in Time more or less constant as to size. — Hakel’s ‘ Origin of Man.’—Sir C. Lyell’s doubtful phraseology. —Mammalia, absence of, in far distant islands. —The Navara Lizard. : : d ’ : ; : “ . 289

Chapter XXIII. The Derivative Doctrine Of Professor Owen

Professor Owen’s statement that he has held the doctrine of ‘ Derivation’ for thirty years.—His present belief is in a Law of Variation ab initio—The Hipparion.—Professor Owen's vital difference from Darwin.—His strong language towards Sir C. Lyell and Professor Huxley.—Summary of differences between Darwinism and Owenism.—No stronger proof of derivation than of Darwinism.— Professor Owen’s doctrine a surrender of outposts to the enemy.—He does not remove a single difficulty.— Difficulty or impossibility of the finite mind grasping the Infinite. —The Vertebral type in time.—Method in Creation.—The wisdom, the power, and the goodness of God.—Law not paramount to the lawgiver.—The Book of Nature a sealed book.— Probability of the seal being broken.—Rules of action in unravelling the great scheme. : : : F , , . 804 xiv CONTENTS.

Chapter XXIV

MR. DARWIN’S LINE OF DESCENT.

PAGE Mr. Darwin’s line of descent taken from Hakel.—The animal, like larva of Ascidian.—Kowalevsky’s researches.—Confirmed by Kiipfter, utterly denied by Donitz.—Uncertainty of microscopic investigations, according to Dr. Royston-Pigott.—Unfair review of Donitz; paper in the ‘ Microscopical Quarterly Journal.’ —The Amphioxus.— The Lepidosiren.— The Ornithorynchus. — The Kangaroo.—Mr. St. G. Mivart’s argument against Natural Selection.—The Lemur.—The Simiade.—Man-like Apes.—Ape-like Man.—Man.—Enormous amount of guessing in Darwin’s human pedigree.—Ignorance of Science.—Enormous difficulties in tracing a human pedigree.—Strain upon credulity producing bad results.—Thomsonian Moss.—Speculative Philosophy.—Danger to Science.—Triumph of the True , . . : > . 313

CHAPTER XXY.

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

The Eye.—Its adaptation to different Media.—Eye of Birds.—The Moveable Bony Orbit of Birds.—The Golden Eagle.-—The Owl. —The Swan.-—The Marsupium, a Structure peculiar to the Eyes of Birds.—Its supposed Use.—Professor Owen’s View.—Impossibility of such a Structure being formed by Natural Selection.— Least Action shown in the folding of the Marsupium.—Professor Haughton’s Questions 4 : : : : ; . . 330

Chapter XXVI. The Teleological Argument

The Human Ear.—Its elaborate Beauty.—Structures Final.— Variation as a Cause of such Organism ridiculous and absurd.— Diagram of Ear.—Description of the Course of a Wave of Sound, and Concurrent Description of the use of each Part of the Apparatus.—Sublime Contemplations produced by reflecting upon these Exquisite Series of Structures.—Fibres of Corti.—Professor Huxley’s Lucid Description of their Use.—Proofs of Design and ‘Least Action’ shown under Eleven different Heads.—Mr. St. George Mivart’s opinion against the Possibility of Natural Selection playing any part here.—Reviewer of Darwin in ‘ Edinburgh’ for July 1871.—Mzr. Holden, the Anatomist, quoted . 328

CONTENTS. XV

Chapter XXVII. The Teleological Argument Continued

PAGE M. Agassiz.—Structure of Animal Life.—Definite Laws of Distribution of Animals.—Always Order, which shows ‘ Consecutive . thought. It is something which the Architect retains to Himself only while he is superintending the work.’—Echinodermata.— Proofs taken from Order of Succession in Time and Order of Gradation in Structure.—Coincidence of Result produced by different Methods or different Jdeas.—Development of Echinoderms.—Crinoids.—The Three different Ideas of Order in which Animals first appear on Earth.—Similarity of Complication in Structure of Lowest to Highest, and order of Growth.— The Radiates.— Potentiality of Original Speck of Matter according to Evolutionists considered, and its utter. Incompatibility with Facts of Creation shown.—Our ignorance of the Mode by which Species were created.—The Holothuride.—Sea Urchins.—Star Fish . , : . ‘ : : . ‘ 3 ; . 308

Chapter XXVIII. The Teleological Argument Concluded

Professor Haughton’s Lectures upon Least Action in Nature,— Position of Bones and Sockets predicted by Mechanical Laws with certainty.—Classification of Muscles.—The Prismatic. — The Penniform.—The Quadrilateral.—Skew Surface — Economy of Force.—Nature has other Views, such as Beauty of Form and Surface of Least Resistance, to consider.—Beauty one of the Pre-existing Conditions in the mind of the Creator.—The Tiger and. its Triangular Biceps Femoris.—lenniform Muscle, that which lifts Wing of Bird.—Reasons why Penniform Muscle is used in Wing of Bird.—The back stroke,—Necessity to give greatest Force, that two given Angles of 90° each should be passed through at same Time.—Nothing tentative in any Branch of Nature.—The Human Heart.--Amount of Work done by it.—Its beautiful Structure.—Its Method of Work.—The Principle of ‘Least Action’ as applied to the Heart.—The Uterus.—Conclusion of the Three Lectures : j : 1 : ; . 369 xvi CONTENTS.

Chapter XXIX. Evolution And Theology

PAGE The Teleological Argument inexhaustible-—Evolution and Theology as advanced by Mr. St. George Mivart.—His Dogma of Evolution.—Belief in both Theism and Christianity inseparably bound up with the Dogma of Creation.—The Fathers Evolutionists.— Reasons for rejecting their testimony on this subject. —The Soul separately created.—Mr. St. George Mivart’s theory of Evolution shown to be untenable.—Its Difficulties cognate with those of Darwinism.—Conclusion . : ‘ : . 386

INDEX . : , : ; ‘ , F é ‘ AALS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

DRAWN AND ENGRAVED BY G. PEARSON.

—— OO

PAGE Table showing the ‘ Descent of aie wea to Darwin, Hakel, and Huxley : : ‘ . First Frontispiece Gorilla (after Nature), and Skull of Gorilla (after Owen); Australian (after Angas), and Skull of Australian (after Owen) Second Frontispiece Fic. 1 to 5. Euclidian Solids ; : : ‘ ’ . 386 , 6. Development of Ascidian (after Boaeny! 2 : . 316

,, 6*. Simple Ascidian (after original in Reha ea of Anatomy and Physiology’) . ; , ‘ . i . 317

» 7. Amphioxus, or Lancelet (after Husley) ‘ ‘ ‘ . 319

Diagram of Amphioxus, or Lancelet (after Allman, in Lecture

Room) . ‘ : ‘ : , ‘ : : . 319 , 8. Sturgeon (drawn by G. Read, from specimen taken in Essex) . : : : : : é : ; . 319 », 9. Lepidosiren ‘ : : ’ . 820 , 10. Ornithorynchus Paradoxus ye Nature) and Skull of Ornithorynchus Paradoxus (from Chenw). . : . 321 » 11. Great Kangaroo (from Nature), and Skull of Great Lica (after Owen) . ; : : . 323 ,, 12. Prats 1. Red Lemur (from Nature), and Skull of Red Lemur (after Huxley) : ‘ é . 325

R 13. Prats 2. Howler Monkey (from Nata) and Skull of Howler Monkey (after Owen) . . : . 326

», 14, Prats 3. Gibraltar Baboon (after Nats and Skull of Gibraltar Baboon (after Owen) . ; . 328

XVlil LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE

Fie. 17 and 18. Crystalline Lens and Bony Eye-case of Golden Eagle 333

», 19. Diagram of internal and external Ear of Man—anatomical details exact . ; : : : : : ; . 340

,, 20. Section of Human internal Kar (after Valentin) ; . 341

» 21. Fibres of Corti shown in section of the Lamina Spiralis of the Cochlea of Human Ear (after Corti) . : . 348

22 to 838. Figures illustrative of the Echinodermata (after Agassiz) : : : : A ‘ ‘ : . 358

,, 84, Skew-surface (after Haughton) . . . ne GSTS

THE

FALLACIES OF DARWINISM.

Chapter I. Introductory

Dr. Hooker’s statement as to the position of Darwinism at Norwich.— Not borne out by facts.—Agassiz.—His opinions upon Darwinism.— Other European writers.—M. Flourens.—The ‘Atheneum’ upon Dr. Hooker.—The Odiwm Theologicum.—The importance of the subject as affecting human thought and action.—The reviewer in the ‘ Edinburgh Quarterly.’—Division of the subject.

In his address as President of the British Association at Norwich, in August 1868, Dr. Hooker made some remarks upon the hypothesis of Mr, Darwin, to which, I think, exception may be fairly taken. I select the following passage: ‘So far from “ natural selection” being a thing of the past, it is an accepted doctrine with every philosophical naturalist, including, it will always be understood, a considerable proportion who are not prepared to assent that it accounts for all Mr. Darwin assigns to it.’

I did not then, nor do I now, three years afterwards, think that this statement could be borne out by proof. Since that address was delivered, indeed, Natural <n B

Selection has rather gone down in the world, for Mr. Darwin himself has discovered that he had carried it too far;' and Mr. St. George Mivart has proved, and I think incontestably, that it has not a basis of truth.? But at the time of the Norwich meeting some of the most celebrated men in science were utterly opposed to the whole of Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis. Notably may be mentioned Agassiz the Cuvier of America, and M. Flourens, the Secretary of the French Academy. Dr. Hooker did not merely make the sweeping assertion above referred to, but he quoted Agassiz himself as a witness in his favour. That this was done from a misapprehension of what Agassiz said, as suggested by the ‘ Atheneum,’ I fully believe. Dr. Hooker’s words were: ‘ Reviews on the “ Origin of Species” are still pourjng in*from the Continent, and Agassiz, in one of the addresses which he issued to his collaborateurs on their late voyage to the Amazon, directs their attention to this theory as a primary object of the expedition they were then undertaking.’ I again quote the ‘Atheneum’ upon the above passage: ‘He said the reverse. We requote the pith of his remarks for the benefit of Dr. Hooker. M. Agassiz says: * The South American faune will give me the means of showing that the transmutation theory is wholly without foundation in facts... . If the facts are insufficient on our side they are absolutely wanting on the other... . We certainly cannot think

1 Descent of Man, 1871. 2 Genesis of Species, 1871.

the development theory proved because a few naturalists think it plausible. . .. I wish to warn you, not against the development theory itself, but against the looseness of the methods of study upon which it is based.” ’ !

Dr. Hooker, after making the statement that the Darwinian theory was ‘an accepted doctrine with every philosophical naturalist,’ goes on to quote Agassiz again; and, as I noticed to a clergyman sitting next to me in the Drill Hall, in a manner which would lead the great majority of his hearers to believe he was doing so as a supporter of the Darwinian hypothesis. ‘ Having myself been a student of moral philosophy in a northern university, I entered on my scientific career full of hopes that metaphysics would prove a useful Mentor, if not quite a science. I soon, however, found that it availed me nothing; and I long ago arrived at the conclusion so well put by Agassiz, where he says: “ We trust that the time is not distant when it will be universally understood that the battle of the evidences will have to be fought on the field of physical science and not on that of the metaphysical.’ ” ?

In answer to this inference, I will give some extracts from one of Agassiz’ most recent works, viz., ‘ The Structure of Animal Life; being six lectures on

1 Atheneum, Aug. 29, 1868, p. 270-1. 2 Agassiz on the Contemplation of God in the Kosmos, Christian Examiner, Fourth Series, Vol. XV. p. 2.

B 2 the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in His works,’ delivered at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in January and February, 1862, and published in London with corrections in 1866. ‘The study of nature has one great object which fairly comes within the scope of the foundation of this course of lectures. It is to trace the connection between all created beings; to discover, if possible, the plan according to which they have been created, and to search out their relation to the great Author (p. 1).

‘Such is the position of science. It is the questioning, the doubting element in human progress; and, when that has gone far enough, it begins the work of reconstruction in such a way as will never harm true religion, or cause any reasonable apprehension to the real and sincere Christian (p. 2).

‘ At this moment natural history can show, not only that there is a plan in the creation of the animal kingdom, but that the plan has been preconceived, has been laid out in the course of time, and executed with the definite object of introducing man upon earth’ (p. 3).

‘It is an undoubted fact that the differences among domestic animals, which we designate by the term “‘ breeds,” are of comparatively recent date. The time when many of them were first introduced is known, the variations are the work of man—the result of human care, of artificial means. But these differences are not of the same kind as the differences we observe among wild animals’ (p. 50). I need not say that the latter part of this passage, printed in italics, is utterly at variance with the Darwinian hypothesis. Further :—

‘Here then we have the evidence that these differences are the work of man, the result of artificial means applied for the purpose of rendering the animals , subservient to him; while, on the other hand, the | differences existing among wild animals are the result of a creative power over which the mind of man has no control. Domesticated animals show us only the amplitude of the pliability of structure in each animal, and in no way the method by which the diversity existing among wild animals can be supposed to have been introduced. Domestication never produces forms which are self-perpetuating, and is therefore in no way an index of the process by which species are produced’ (p. 51). I quote the following to show the fairness with which Agassiz treats the subject :—

‘Now the question with reference to the existence of living beings, whether they are the products or results of laws working in nature, established by the Almighty, or whether they are the work of the Creator directly—this is the point I propose to examine on the basis of scientific facts; not on the moral ground upon which we trust in Divine Providence, but upon scientific evidence, for science must deal with facts on its own ground, without reference to preconceived opinions or convictions, and we should welcome what science has to say upon the subject of an overruling Providence’ (p. 91).

Upon the Darwinian hypothesis he says :—

‘If we were to credit a certain theory which is very well received at this time, which has lately been propounded by some very learned, but I venture to say rather fanciful scientific men, it would appear that in the beginning animals were few in number, and that as they became more and more numerous they became more and more different from one another, as if all the diversity which exists on the earth at the present moment had grown out of a comparatively simple and small beginning. This is an impression which prevails so generally, that before I take another step in my demonstration, I will endeavour to show the fallacy of it’ (p. 92).

Let us hear this great man upon a subject which has rendered his name immortal, as an illustration of the crushing remarks in the above paragraph: ‘ The number of species of fishes in the Mediterranean is only a few hundred; those that inhabit the German Ocean only about 180 or 200; those on the Atlantic coast of France not more than 250; and yet the sum total of the different kinds of fish known in all parts of the world is nearly 10,000. If we were to compare the fossil fishes found thus far in the strata of the globe, with those of the whole world as they now exist, we should make the same mistake as in estimating the inhabitants of one region as those of the

AGASSIZ. v4 whole world. The fossil fishes. . . which were found at Mount Vulcan, near Verona, are from a celebrated quarry not many miles in extent, in which over 100 different kinds of fossil fishes have been taken. The Adriatic, in its whole extent, does not furnish as many different species as are found in this quarry. I have examined the fossil fishes of the neighbourhood of Riga on the Baltic, and they are more numerous than the present living species of the Baltic and German Ocean ’ (p. 95).

Having given similar results with regard to shells to prove that in former periods, ‘ within similar areas there was as great diversity of animals as now exist,’ Professor Agassiz remarks : ‘ What better evidence do we want that at all times the world has been inhabited by as great a diversity of animals as exists now and that at each period they have been different from those of every other period? This is a very important fact, because it is a most powerful blow at that theory which would make us believe that all animals have been derived from a few original beings which have become diversified and varied in course of time.’ ‘The italics above are mine. The statement is most explicit, and I think the reader will by this time be beginning to think that Professor Agassiz is not a believer in the Darwinian hypothesis.

Turning to writers on the subject in Europe, we find the names of Owen, Phillips, Beale, Haughton, Stirling, Wollaston, St. George Mivart, among many others in our own country, who have taken a more or less decided attitude against Darwinism.

For my present purpose, however, I take from France the name of an eminent man who has lately gone to his account, which will not pale before that of the most celebrated disciple of Darwin. I mean that of the late M. Flourens. :

In the ‘ Atheneum’ of August 29, 1868, the omission of any notice of this ‘ philosophical! naturalist’s’ work, written in direct refutation of the hypothesis of Darwin, is thus alluded to :—

‘Dr. Hooker has carelessly read the critique he quoted. Init Mr. Charles Darwin is accused of ignoring the work published by M. Flourens in refutation of his hypothesis. This work is founded upon the results of the experiments in crossing breeds which have continued for about one hundred years by Buffon, by George and Frederic Cuvier, and by M. Flourens. If Dr. Hooker had read the critique (upon Darwin’s last two volumes on the “ Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication,” February 15, 1868) attentively he would have been aware of the existence of this book ; and surely the President of the British Association would have deemed some notice due to the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Science, and Director of the Museum of Natural History at Paris.’ I shall have occasion hereafter to allude especially to the work of M. Flourens,' and