EDITOR'S TABLE. 



243 



intense vulgarity of its philosophy, for its 

 gross, unblushing materialism, for its silly | 

 credulity in catering out of every fool's dish, 

 for its utter ignorance of what is meant by 

 induction, for its gross (and, I dare to say, 

 filthy) views of physiology most ignorant 

 and most false and for its shameful shuf- 

 fling of the facts of geology so as to make 

 them play a rogue's game. I believe some 

 woman is the author ; partly from the fair 

 dress and agreeable exterior of the 'Ves- 

 tiges,' and partly from the ignorance the 

 book displays of all sound physical logic. 

 A man who knew so much of the surface of 

 physics must, at least on some one point or 

 other, have taken a deeper plunge ; but all 

 parts of the book are shallow. . . . From 

 the bottom of my soul I loathe and detest 

 the ' Vestiges.' 'Tis a rank pill of asafos- 

 tida and arsenic, covered with gold-leaf. I 

 do, therefore, trust that your contributor has 

 stamped with an iron heel upon the head of 

 the filthy abortion, and put an end to its 

 crawlings. There is not one subject the 

 author handles bearing on life, of which he 

 does not take a degrading view." 



There is not much writing in this 

 style nowadays, a generation having 

 made a great difference in the spirit 

 with which this subject is discussed. 

 It is noteworthy that the furious de- 

 nunciations of the doctrine that man 

 has been created through the unfolding 

 of the universe, rather than by a spe- 

 cial miracle, are now put less on the 

 ground of mere dislike and disgust than 

 on that of its scientific falsity. It is 

 strangely said that the idea of the der- 

 ivation of the human race by the op- 

 erations of natural law, such as govern 

 the development of the individual, is 

 unscientific, while the notion that man 

 was supernaturally injected in a perfect 

 state into the existing system of things 

 is held to be the true scientific view. 

 For the benefit of those who want to 

 hear both sides, we republish, in the 

 May Supplement, a vehement diatribe, 

 by Dr. Elam, purporting to be a reply 

 to Prof. Tyndall's " Man and Science." 

 He is at home in the style of Sedgwick 

 when writing upon the " Vestiges," 

 but he has the sense to see that the 

 question is after all a scientific one. He 

 says: 



" Not because it is unutterably disgust- 

 ing and humiliating, but because the idea 

 is profoundly and irredeemably unscientific, 

 founded on false data, false conceptions, and 

 false reasonings, do I altogether repudiate 

 our ' wormy ' and ape-like ancestry. Upon 

 man everywhere, debased, degraded, fallen 

 from his high estate though he may be, I 

 see the seal and impress of his special and 

 divine origin." 



The Rev. Joseph Cook seems to be 

 trying, commendably, to state things 

 as they are, but finds it difficult. The 

 other Monday he characterized The 

 Popular Science Monthly as a " use- 

 ful " periodical, and in this he was quite 

 correct. He also affirmed that it is 

 " crudely edited," and here he was, no 

 doubt, much nearer the truth than he is 

 wont to be. But when he speaks of Vir- 

 cho w in connection with the Monthly his 

 old propensities overcome him. He said 

 of Prof. Virchow's discourse on " The 

 Liberty of Science in the Modern State : " 

 " The Popular. Science Monthly has 

 indeed published an imperfect report 

 of this great address ; but it has failed, 

 as has also Asa Gray, of Cambridge (in 

 an article in the Independent), to bring 

 out the breadth of the collision between 

 Virchow and Haeckel." A false impres- 

 sion is here created, to say the least. 

 "We have not printed an imperfect -re- 

 port of Virchow's address, but a full 

 and faithful translation of it. As to 

 our having failed to bring out the 

 " breadth of the collision between Vir- 

 chow and Haeckel," it happens that we 

 have done that very thing, and are 

 the only parties that have done it. "We 

 printed both speeches side by side in 

 the February Popular Science Supple- 

 ment, and, moreover, so that they can 

 be sold with ten other elaborate articles 

 at half the price that Murray charges 

 for Virchow's speech alone. If, there- 

 fore, any one wishes to get a clear no- 

 tion of the breadth, depth, height, and 

 momentum, of this remarkable "col- 

 lision," he will find it in the periodical 



