566* POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Had I been present I think that, passing over his assertion, which is open 

 to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have 

 never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical 

 to assume that any species ever had been created. 



Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being ade- 

 quately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is sup- 

 ported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a 

 given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, 

 but assume that their own needs none. Here we find, scattered over the 

 globe, vegetable and animal organisms numbering, of the one kind (accord- 

 ing to Humboldt), some 320,000 species, and of the other, some 2,000,000 

 species (see Carpenter) ; and if to tbese we add the numbers of animal and 

 vegetable species which have become extinct, we may safely estimate the 

 number of species that have existed, and are existing, on the Earth, at not 

 less than ten millions. Well, which is the most rational theory about these 

 ten millions of species? Is it most likely that there have been ten millions 

 of special creations [each implying a conscious design and acts in pursu- 

 ance of it] ? or is it most likely that, by continual modifications due to 

 change of circumstances, ten millions of varieties [i. e. kinds] have been 

 produced ? , . . ,j 



Doubtless many will reply that they can more easily conceive ten 

 millions of special creations to have taken place, than they can conceive 

 that ten millions of varieties have arisen by successive modifications. All 

 such, however, will find, on inquiry, that they are under an illusion. . . . 

 Careful introspection will show them that they have never yet realized to 

 themselves the creation of even one species. If they have formed a definite 

 conception of the process, let them tell us how a new species is constructed, 

 and how it makes its appearance. Is it thrown down from the clouds ? or 

 must we hold to the notion that it struggles up out of the ground ? Do its 

 limbs and viscera rush together from all the points of the compass ? or 

 must we receive the old Hebrew idea, that God takes clay and molds a new 

 creature ? . . . 



Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call 

 upon them to describe how special creations take i)lace, I reply that this is 

 far less than they demand from the supporters of the development hypothe- 

 sis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode. On the other 

 hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actual 

 mode. They do not say Show us how this may take place ; but they say 

 Show us how this does take place. So far from its being unreasonable 

 to put the above question, it would be reasonable to ask not only for a 

 possible mode of special creation, but for an ascertained mode; seeing that 

 this is no greater a demand than they make upon their opponents. 



It is true that the contrast of evidences here emphasized refers 

 not to the theory of the origin of species through natural selec- 

 tion, which at that time (1852) had not been propounded, but 

 refers to the theory of organic evolution considered apart from 

 any assigned causes, or rather, as due to the general cause adap- 

 tation to conditions. The contrast remains equally strong, how- 

 ever, if, instead of the general doctrine the special doctrine is in 

 question ; and the demand for facts in support of this special doc- 



