CREATION OR EVOLUTION? 31 



theories is to test them by facts, not to erect them into final and abso- 

 lute standards. We do not 'imagine that Mr. Curtis will claim that no 

 inquiry into man's descent can be carried on without assuming the ex- 

 istence of an infinite Creator, such as he describes. To such a claim, 

 if made, the immediate and appropriate answer would be, " Solvitur 

 ambidando." Such inquiries are, in point of fact, being conducted 

 every day, without any reference to that particular theory, simply by 

 the aid of such facts and analogies as a study of Nature furnishes. It 

 is quite open, of course, to Mr. Curtis to set such bounds to his own 

 inquiries as he may approve of, and to exercise his originality to the 

 full in devising canons of interpretation for the facts which investiga- 

 tion brings under his notice ; but he should really not ask us to accept 

 the special opinions by which he, as an individual, chooses to be guided, 

 as the ultimate and indispensable conditions of all research. "We are 

 quite prepared to arrive at his opinions as the result of inquiry, if the 

 evidence appears to be in their favor, and shall be only too happy to 

 find ourselves in agreement with so potent a logician ; but we are not 

 prepared to "postulate" anything that is not absolutely necessary to 

 intellectual movement. 



If it should be said that Darwin himself postulated (even in the 

 loosest sense of the word) an infinite Creator, we should meet the 

 statement with a simple denial. Darwin expressed himself on a few 

 occasions in language pointing to a theistic belief ; but never so as to 

 imply that the conclusions to which he might be led by a study of 

 Nature were to be checked by general reasonings founded on the 

 nature and attributes of an infinite Creator. One great point of dif- 

 ference not to mention others between Darwin and his present 

 critic is that the former was profoundly conscious of his entire inabil- 

 ity to speculate intelligently concerning what an infinite Creator might 

 or might not, should or should not, would or would not, have done. 

 Far from being conscious of any such inability, Mr. Curtis seems to 

 entertain no doubt whatever of his perfect competency to discuss and 

 settle questions as to the probable mode or modes of special Divine 

 action. In one place, indeed, he admits that " we can not penetrate 

 into his" (the Almighty's) "counsels without the aid of revelation" ; 

 but, on the very same page, he claims to be able to see sufficiently far 

 into the purposes of God to warrant him in believing that "acts of 

 special creation are vastly more probable than the theory of evolu- 

 tion." Throughout the book, indeed, we are continually being called 

 upon to agree with the author that some particular method of action 

 is a much more "probable" one for the Supreme Being to have 

 adopted than some other (evolutionary) process. It does not appear 

 to have ever struck the learned and acute author that such language 

 may savor of impiety even to evolutionists. Where, it may very per- 

 tinently be asked, has Mr. Curtis obtained the knowledge that enables 

 him to judge what are the probable methods of Divine action ? We 



