128 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



servations he has made and described, the 

 author concludes, at the end of his work, 

 that, leaving out of consideration the East- 

 ern, or navigable, district, the topography 

 of the region is very favorable for power. 

 The rivers have steep declivities, and often 

 cataracts or rapids of considerable mag- 

 nitude. The superior wooded condition of 

 the country and the deep, pervious soil tend 

 to make the flow of the streams constant, 

 though it is, perhaps, more variable than 

 that of the streams of New England and the 

 northern part of the Middle States. The 

 Southern streams, however, enjoy a greater 

 rain-fall than the Northern ones. The beds 

 of the streams are everywhere favorable for 

 the foundation of dams, and the banks are 

 generally suitable for the construction of 

 canals and buildings at the points where the 

 water-powers occur. The chief advantage 

 in the water-powers in the South lies in their 

 freedom from ice. On the whole, the au- 

 thor believes that he is justified in asserting, 

 from a purely technical point of view, that 

 the advantages for the utilization of water- 

 power in the Southern Atlantic States " are, 

 in many respects, as good as could be de- 

 sired." 



Studies in Science and Religion. By G. 

 Frederick Wright, author of the 

 "Logic of Christian Evidences." An- 

 dover : Warren F. Draper. Pp. 390. 



Though written from an orthodox point 

 of view, and strictly " A Companion to the 

 Logic of Christian Evidences," this is a 

 very fair book, liberal in its views, agree- 

 able in its tone, and instructive in its treat- 

 ment. It is dedicated to Professor Asa 

 Gray, with a pleasant reference to his 

 " Discussions of Natural Theology," which 

 are well known to be '' Darwinian" in char- 

 acter, and the volume might perhaps have 

 been more appropriately entitled " Studies 

 in Darwinism." At any rate, it is through- 

 out mainly a discussion of the group of 

 topics that are at present prominently asso- 

 ciated with Darwin's name. The author 

 does not avow himself to be a Darwinian, 

 and hardly goes further than to demand 

 that the new theories of development shall 

 be treated in future with more candor and 

 consideration than they have hitherto re- 

 ceived, lie aims to state the Darwinian 



arguments with justice, and he draws upon 

 a wide and critical reading of its adverse 

 literature for the most effective arguments 

 upon the other side. We regard his book 

 as chiefly valuable for the fullness and 

 variety of its quotations bearing upon the 

 general subject. 



But it seems to us that the antagonist 

 arguments brought forward acquire a facti- 

 tious force from the author's mode of rep- 

 resenting them, although we do not accuse 

 him in this of intentional unfairness. But 

 he nevertheless commits the grave error of 

 identifying " Darwinism " with evolution, 

 and, by bringing forward all that has been 

 objected to the principle of " natural selec- 

 tion," the accumulated illustrations of diffi- 

 culties, and Mr. Darwin's own retreat from 

 the claims he made at first, a case is seem- 

 ingly made out against evolution, which ap- 

 pears, to say the least, very embarrassing. 

 But it can not be too often reiterated in 

 these times that Darwinism is not evolution, 

 and that to assume them as the same thing 

 can only lead to confusion and mischievous 

 error. There can be no greater mistake 

 than to suppose that the proofs of evolu- 

 tion are in any large sense dependent upon 

 the proofs of natural selection, or that any 

 restriction of the range and operation of 

 this principle involves the varlidity of the 

 evolutionary theory. Mr. Darwin has never 

 attempted either the broad investigation or 

 the comprehensive discussion of the law of 

 evolution ; and, by confining himself mainly 

 to the consideration of " Darwinism," Mr. 

 Wright virtually evades the larger problem, 

 and to that degree his book is an inadequate 

 repi-esentation of the present relations of 

 science and religion. 



Theologian as he is, he refers with dis- 

 paragement to the a priori method by ad- 

 monishing the reader to "note carefully 

 the character of Mr. Darwin's reasoning as 

 distinguished from the multitude of a priori 

 evolutionists who have espoused his cause." 

 Perhaps the author would object to the 

 a priori use of mathematics in its applica- 

 tion to physics or of any principles induct- 

 ively established to the interpretation of 

 phenomena ; but, however that may be, he 

 offers a very lame pretext for not dealing 

 with the subject of evolution as an elabo- 

 rated system of facts and principles of vari- 



