HUXLEY A^D EVOLUTION". 325 



that theory; and that, too, a picture painted more than 

 two centuries previously, when biological and geological 

 science were scarcely in embryo. By the side of that 

 picture, however, he placed the latest aspect of the evo- 

 lution theory. The disingenuousness of such a compari- 

 son is grotesque. It is not asserted that Professor Huxley 

 felt the comparison to be disingenuous. It must be as- 

 sumed that he intended to be fair and just. We will 

 admit, then, that he did not know the Miltonic picture 

 to be a mere burlesque of the science of those holding 

 the " creation theory." We will admit, in other words, 

 that he had not informed himself concernincf the theorv 

 which he publicly proposed to overthrow, but succeeded 

 only in ridiculing. 



But the lecturer attempted also to show that the Mil- 

 tonic order of creation is not sustained by palaeontology. 

 Well, if the language of Milton means and implies what 

 the lecturer claimed, we must admit that the scientific 

 record diverges. But what was the necessity of setting 

 up blind old John Milton and knocking him down again 

 amid the jeers of such an audience ? It would have 

 been an equal feat to indict and convict old Thomas 

 Burnet for the showing of his " Sacred Theory of the 

 Earth." We can discover no explanation of this exploit, 

 save the lecturer's belief that the Miltonic conception of 

 creation " is that which has been instilled into every one 

 of us in our childhood" [and that it is generally accepted 

 as the most consistent form of the creation theory].* 

 He does not pretend that in extinguishing the Miltonic 



* The words in brackets were omitted froni the " carefully revised " edition. 

 From this it might be inferred that the lecturer was aware that the Miltonic the- 

 ory is ?iot generally accepted as ^scientifically authentic. 



