no THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY . 



environment. Finally, Mr. Romanes postulates a highly vari- 

 able reproductive system of which no explanation is given, and 

 by this he would explain the sterility of species inter se ; Prof. 

 Weismann carries us back to the Protophyta and Protozoa, 

 where strictly speaking there is no reproduction, and to the 

 direct action of environment upon these, from which, in the 

 Metaphyta and Metazoa, by sexual reproduction we get " sjDon- 

 taneous" tendencies multipled in geometrical ratio. These 

 " spontaneous," or, as we prefer to call them, " inherent " tenden- 

 cies or characters, are transmissible ; acquired characters are not. 

 We trust we have not misrepresented these views. We notice 

 them not in the least with a view to deciding between them, 

 though there is little doubt which way the balance of scientific 

 authority at present inclines ; still less with the wish to make 

 capital out of their disagreement, but in order to emphasize the 

 fact that, while Darwinism is generally accepted in the scientific 

 world, there is much which as yet is unsettled ; in other words, 

 that, while every competent man of science now believes in the 

 origin of species by progressive variations, we can not be too 

 much on our guard against stereotyping any theory as to the 

 proximate causes. It is nearly as true now as when Darwin 

 wrote it in 1878 that, though " there is almost complete una- 

 nimity among biologists about evolution, . . . there is still con- 

 siderable difference as to the means, such as how far natural 

 selection has acted, and how far external conditions, or whether 

 there exists some mysterious innate tendency to perfectibility." * 



In the present and a future article we propose to deal with 

 the doctrine so far as it is generally accepted by scientific 

 men, and, without attempting to discuss the evidence on which 

 the doctrine rests, to answer the following question : Given a 

 Churchman who accepts the dogmatic position of the English 

 Church on the one hand, and who, so far as he is able to under- 

 stand it, believes the doctrine of evolution to be the truest solu- 

 tion yet discovered by science of the facts open to its observa- 

 tion, what reconstruction of traditionally accepted views and 

 arguments is necessary and possible ? How is he to relate the 

 new truth with the old ? 



In so stating the problem we put out of court three classes of 

 persons : (a) those who, intrenched in the fortress of religious 

 certainty, are content to leave intellectual problems alone and 

 ignore the movement of scientific thought around them; (6) 

 those who are so " immersed in matter" that the religious side of 

 their nature has become atrophied by disuse ; and (c) those who 

 possess the wonderful power of keeping their intellectual and 

 religious life " sundered as with an axe," who, if they were chal- 



* " Life and Letters," ii, p. 412 (American edition). 



