TWENTY FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING. 97 



one original form, and yet are as unlike each other in their general char- 

 acteristics as possible. We must forever overcome the idea that like pro- 

 duces like. It does not do so. There is no instance in the world where 

 like produces like. There is no child like its parent, no two things in 

 the world exactly alike, no two blades of grass which can not be distia- 

 guished one from the other. 



A very important reason, therefore, for belief in evolution, is the fact 

 before our very eyes. Looking at any two trees in our orchard, we see 

 that they are unlike each other, and they might be still more unlike, and 

 they might be so unlike that they would not be even similar, although 

 grown in the same soil, from the same seed. 



I can tell every person here in the room, when I have become 

 acquainted. Every chrysanthemum, even though of the same variety, is 

 unlike every other one. Out of a hundred Baldwin trees, every tree is 

 unlike every other one. Here, then, is variation, difference, to begin 

 with, and all we need is some hypothesis to explain how it is that these 

 differences could have been enlarged and widened until they became 

 what we call distinct varieties and species. 



The first theory of evolution was that of La Marck, who wrote of ani- 

 mals. He supposed that the reason why animals became modified is the 

 effects of the use and disuse of their parts. I can not enter into the dif^- 

 cussion of it, but will illustrate this way: He saw that every animil 

 lives in a different way from its neighbor; has different food, a different 

 amount, and a different atmosphere in which to live. These environ- 

 ments or circumstances, being unlike, call for new functions or new needs 

 1o satisfy the unlikenesses. When an animal finds himself with lescJ 

 food, he must do more, travel further, and faster; when he is among ene- 

 mies, he must have some means of protection. So, gradually, all those 

 parts that it needs to exercise, grow, and others fall away, and so a 

 divergence sets in. Those animals originally like each other become 

 unlike. This philosophy remained hidden, until the promulgation of 

 Darwin "Origin of Species," a book which "came into the theological 

 world like a plow into an- ant hill," as Andrew D. White says. Darwin's 

 theory was built upon a study of plants and animals. Darwin was a 

 horticulturist, and I suppose no man that ever lived has done so much for 

 plant-breeding as he. 



He considered that the gardener gets cabbages out of other cabbages; 

 that he makes one kind of turnip out of another. Darwin tried to study 

 out how these things were brought. It is simply by the careful selection 

 which the gardener practices. He simply "selects" those best for him, 

 or which please him best, and all the rest are discarded. Darwin says 

 that Nature does just this thing. Here is struggle for life. All can not 

 live. Nature certainly keeps those which are best. "The survival of the 

 fittest," the result of' the "struggle for existence," "natural selection," 

 —this is "Darwinism." It is not synonymous with evolution. That was 

 taught bv the Greeks and Arabs. 



It is now found by those who study animals that this hypothesis of 

 Darwin is not sufficient to account for the evolution of the animal world, 

 and they are reviving at the present time the theories of La Marck, and 

 those apply more particularly to the animal world, as did Darwin's to the 

 vegetable. If we suppose that one form grows into another because of 

 13 



