EDITOR'S TABLE. 



749 



attitude of mind to which we referred, 

 that an extract from it will be here use- 

 ful. Mr. Walworth remarks: 



" You say (in your critique of Dr. Wil- 

 liam M. Taylor) : ' And here is the vital 

 point between Prof. Huxley and his antago- 

 nists. It is a question of the validity of 

 the conception of the order and uniformity 

 of Nature. Prof. Huxley holds to it as a 

 first principle, a truth demonstrated by all 

 science, and just as fixed in biology as in 

 astronomy. His antagonists hold that the 

 inflexible order of Nature may be assorted, 

 perhaps, in astronomy, but they deny it in 

 biology. They here invoke supernatural in- 

 tervention. Obviously there are but two hy- 

 potheses upon the subject: that of genetic 

 derivation of existing species, through the 

 operation of natural law, and that of crea- 

 tion by miraculous interference with the 

 course of Nature. If we assume the orderly 

 course of Nature, development is inevitable ; 

 it is evolution or nothing.' 



" Very well ; it is evolution or nothing. 

 Now, if evolution is true in biology, as Prof. 

 Huxley maintains, my inquiry relates to the 

 matter of the beginning of that evolution, 

 and the beginning of life. Scientists do 

 speak of the beginning of life. Is there a 

 new force or a new principle introduced at 

 this point that scientists have in mind when 

 they say ' the beginning of life ? ' 



" If so, does that new force or principle 

 come through a miraculous interference with 

 the course of Nature ? If not, is life in its 

 beginning other or more than a fact, and 

 its appearance a phenomenon both to be ac- 

 counted for by evolution in conjunction with 

 matter and its inherent forces and princi- 

 ples? 



" Given : First, the planet without life 

 (so called) ; afterward, the planet with life. 



" Then, if evolution is the law of ' dead 

 matter,' and at the same time the law of 

 ' living matter,' is there any chasm between 

 that evolution does not bridge over? 



" In other words, if evolution is the law, 

 is there any escape from the conclusion 

 that the beginning of life (so called) is a 

 product of it, unless we accept the hy- 

 pothesis of miraculous intervention ? And 

 why is any scientist permitted to entertain 

 that hypothesis (miraculous intervention), 

 at this particular point in the course of 

 Nature (the point of the beginning of life), 

 while he claims the right to reject it at all 

 the other points along the line ? " 



This last question implies, what is 



perfectly well known, that many scien- 

 tific men, naturalists, and even ad- 

 vanced biologists like Mr. Darwin, do 

 invoke miraculous agency to explain 

 the origin of life upon earth ; that is, 

 after admitting generally the great 

 principle of natural causation, at a cer- 

 tain point they throw it up as insuffi- 

 cient, and appeal to supernatural causa- 

 tion. 



It is surely unnecessary to waste 

 words here in showing that the con- 

 ception of the order of Nature has had 

 an historic growth ; that in the early 

 times all the operations of the world 

 were explained on the hypothesis of 

 supernatural agents which science has 

 so far' dispelled as imaginary that the 

 great phenomena of the heavens, the 

 changes of the crust of the earth, and 

 even atmospheric disturbances, are now 

 referred for explanation to the opera- 

 tion of inflexible and universal physical 

 laws. "Where explanation breaks down 

 and difficulties remain, in these branches 

 of inquiry, the course pursued is to at- 

 tribute the unexplained effects to lack 

 of knowledge, and to wait for further 

 light from the sources that have already 

 afforded it. Nor can it be necessary to 

 multiply words in showing that it is 

 not so in biology, the science which 

 deals with the phenomena of life. When 

 a formidable difficulty occurs here, such 

 as explaining the origin of species or 

 the first advent of living things upon 

 the earth, there is no waiting, but the 

 knot is cut at once by appealing to 

 miraculous intervention to causes that 

 are above Nature and out of Nature, 

 "and which cannot be investigated. 

 There are, indeed, but few, even in the 

 circles of science, who avowedly main- 

 tain the inviolable supremacy of natural 

 causes, here as elsewhere, in Nature. 

 They assume it generally, but affirm its 

 inadequacy to explain all efforts. How 

 many are there who recognize man, in 

 his origin, to be as strictly and essen- 

 tially a part and result of the order of 

 Nature as any other creature? Like 



