n6 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



to mourning. In science, the passing 

 away of systems is generally an absorp- 

 tion of lesser into more comprehen- 

 sive laws. The question of the truth 

 of a new scientific theory is not as to 

 its everlastingness, but as to its supe- 

 riority to the views it seeks to super- 

 sede. Does it involve fewer assump- 

 tions ? Does it account for more facts ? 

 Does it harmonize conflicting opinion? 

 Does it open new inquiries and incite 

 to fresh research ? These are the tests 

 that determine the acceptance of the 

 theory, and, if it fulfils these condi- 

 tions, it is held to be true. 



Now, how does the doctrine of 

 Evolution answer to these tests? It 

 has arisen as an outgrowth of the latest 

 and highest knowledge, has steadily 

 made its way, in the teeth of inexo- 

 rable criticism, to a large acceptance 

 among the most disciplined thinkers 

 of the period. It has been simmering 

 in the minds of men of science for a 

 century, and has now reached a point 

 where it is capable of being formu- 

 lated ; where it is of great and ac- 

 knowledged value for the guidance of 

 scientific exploration, and it thus an- 

 swers to the highest uses of theory. 

 It is, moreover, becoming every day in- 

 creasingly consonant with facts in the 

 various branches of science, and is now 

 far more congruous with the state of 

 knowledge than any other hypothesis 

 yet applied to the range of facts which 

 it attempts to explain. The proof of 

 the theory is unquestionably incom- 

 plete, but all theories are accepted un- 

 der the same conditions. At the worst, 

 it stands to-day where the theory of 

 gravitation stood in the time of New- 

 ton, which, as Baden Powell remarks, 

 "was beset by palpable contradictions 

 in its results till many years after New- 

 ton's death." 



On a complex and difficult scientific 

 question of this kind, authority goes for 

 something, and Mr. Godwin recognizes 

 it. He remarks : " Can we say that any 

 questions, on which such cautious ob- 



servers and life-long students as Dar- 

 win, Owen, Huxley, Wallace, and Ag- 

 assiz, still debate, are settled ques- 

 tions?" Certainly not ; but, when their 

 fundamental principles are accepted by 

 four out of five of the eminent authori- 

 ties which are cited as differing about 

 them, we must acknowledge that the 

 weight of authority is very strongly on 

 one side. Nor is this all. The eminent 

 scientific men who have adopted the 

 view of Evolution, and that, too, against 

 the powerful pressure of public preju- 

 dice, are to be numbered by scores and 

 hundreds. In fact, the movement among 

 naturalists, for the last ten years, tow- 

 ard a general doctrine of development, 

 has amounted almost to a "stampede." 

 This is not mere unsupported assertion. 

 Here comes the latest scientific book 

 of the season, " The Depths of the 

 Sea," by the eminent Professor of Nat- 

 ural History in the University of Edin- 

 burgh, Wyville Thompson, and he says : 

 " I do not think that I am speaking too 

 strongly when I say that there is now 

 scarcely a single competent general 

 naturalist who is not prepared to ac- 

 cept some form of the doctrine of Evo- 

 lution." Prof. Agassiz, indeed, still 

 clings to his long-cherished opinions; 

 but it is notorious that, on this ques- 

 tion, his old students are running away 

 from him, and his hypothesis, that 

 there is an epidemic aberration upon 

 this subject among the naturalists of 

 the age, will hardly be held as a suffi- 

 cient explanation of the phenomena. 

 On the basis, therefore, of the judgment 

 of the great body of those most compe- 

 tent to form an opinion, we cannot help 

 thinking that Mr. Godwin was not 

 only in error when he characterized 

 the theory of Evolution as counterfeit 

 science ; but that he is also in error 

 when he declares it to be a fugitive 

 speculation, and not an accredited 

 principle, entitled to the weight of 

 valid scientific authority. 



But, aside from the question of au- 

 thority, Mr. Godwin argues against the 



