786 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



be by scientific not theological hands. It holds its ground now, be- 

 cause it is a help to thought and investigation ; if it should ever be- 

 come so beset with difficulties as to be no longer serviceable, it will be 

 withdrawn from use, as many a theory has been before it, and as many 

 a one will be in the days to come. Among contemporary men of 

 science there is probably none who believes more strongly in the doc- 

 trine in question than the editor of " The Popular Science Monthly " ; 

 yet in a recent number of his magazine he has marked his attitude 

 toward it in a manner which for our present purpose is very instructive. 

 " It is undeniable," he writes, " that the difficulties in the way of the 

 doctrine of evolution are many and formidable, and it will no doubt 

 take a long time to clear them up ; while the solution of still unresolved 

 problems will very possibly result in important modifications of the 

 theory as now entertained. But the establishment of the doctrine of 

 evolution, as a comprehensive law of nature, is no longer dependent 

 upon its freedom from embarrassments, or that absoluteness of proof 

 which will only become possible with the future extension of knowl- 

 edge. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the evidence for it is so 

 varied, so consistent, and so irresistible, as to compel its broad accept- 

 ance by men of science, who, while disagreeing upon many of its 

 questions, find it indispensable as a guide to the most multifarious in- 

 vestigations." 



We now come to the further question of the validity of the criti- 

 cisms directed in the pamphlet before us against the doctrine of evolu- 

 tion, in discussing which the competency of the critic for his self-im- 

 posed task will necessarily come more or less under consideration. Let 

 us first notice the quotations which his lordship brings forward, remem- 

 bering that the doctrine of evolution in its present shape may be said 

 to be the work of the last twenty years. Well, his lordship quotes 

 three leading scientific authors Owen, Agassiz, and Lyell ; but it is 

 noticeable that in no case does he give the date of his quotation, and 

 in the case of the first two does not even mention the work in which 

 the passage he refers to is to be found. The quotations are intended 

 to show that these eminent authors rejected the doctrine of the " origin 

 of species by natural selection." As regards Agassiz, who died ten 

 years ago, every one knows that this was the case ; and most are also 

 aware that the great Swiss naturalist left behind him a son, a natu- 

 ralist almost equally great, who supports the Darwinian theory as strong- 

 ly as his father opposed it. Owen, though not a Darwinian in the full 

 sense, held views which were clearly in the direction of natural selec- 

 tion. It is, however, when we come to Lyell that we have cause for 

 astonishment. Here we have the most eminent of English geologists, 

 whose adhesion to the Darwinian theory, announced for the first time 

 in 1863 the date of the publication of the first edition of his "An- 

 tiquity of Man" created such a sensation in the scientific world, 

 quoted, at this time of day, as an anti-Darwinian ! What are we to 



