3^0 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



those random charges of dishonesty and mendacity, and those sweep- 

 ing ascriptions of motive which are unfortunately so common. Thus 

 we have often heard and seen it asserted that the authors of some 

 particular theory were actuated hy a desire to disprove the existence 

 of a God, to subvert the Christian religion or some particular form of 

 it, or to injure public morals. To such assertors we would reply: 

 "Prove your charge by evidence, such as would satisfy an impartial 

 court of justice, or take the consequences, which will not be pleas- 

 ant ! " We are here reminded that in the very passage in Mr. 

 Mivart's book (p. 144), in which he comes unpleasantly near charg- 

 ing Mr. Darwin with atheism, he brings forward against the same 

 gentleman something very like an accusation of dishonesty. It is 

 perfectly true that in the " Origin of Species " Mr. Darwin does not 

 pronounce as to whether mankind had or had not been gradually 

 evolved from some lower form" of animal life. But reticence is very 

 different from dishonesty. A thinker is not absolutely bound to bring 

 his speculations to light at all; for keeping them back, while he is 

 accumulating and weighing the evidence for and against them, he 

 deserves praise rather than censure. Nay, even for introducing doc- 

 trines gradually, as the public are able to bear them, there is certainly 

 authority which Mr. Mivart cannot consistently impugn. Nor must 

 we forget that Mr. Darwin has, from the first, nowise courted pub- 

 licity for his views. But for the fact that Mr. Wallace was known to 

 be preparing a work of a somewhat similar nature, even the " Origin 

 of Species " might never have seen the light. 



There may be persons who will be aggrieved at this expression of 

 our views on the subject of scientific controversies; but if they feel 

 themselves guiltless they may cheerfully exclaim, " Let the galled jade 

 wince." As for those who have actually made the kind of charges 

 we protest against, they have no claim to lenity or forbearance. 



Controversies on theories in the various inorganic sciences have 

 been carried on with no little acrimony. But charges of atheism are, 

 at least, banished. Why may not this reform be extended to biology 

 and psychology? Those who cannot treat these subjects from a 

 purely scientific point of view may serve to test the patience of unfor-: 

 tunate reviewers, but they cannot lead us to the truth. Extract from 

 Article in the Quarterly Journal of Science. 



