102 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. . 



Such is the essayist's introduction ; and that he deems his ambitious 

 project to have been triumphantly accomplished is evident from the 

 words of his conclusion : " But it is unnecessary to pursue this point 

 any further. We have already said enough to satisfy our present 

 object, which is simply to expose the weakness of the reasoning (if 

 reasoning it could be called) by which the theory before us is assumed 

 to be maintained. The question is essentially one to be decided by 

 the exercise of the judicial faculties, . . , and if so dealt with, apart 

 from all fanciful speculation, we feel no hesitation in asserting that the 

 conclusion will be that at which we ourselves have long since arrived, 

 viz., that development by evolution is merely a rhetorical expression, 

 a form of words, and nothing more." 



It will thus be seen that the reviewer's purpose is sufficiently sweep- 

 ing ; and, considering he is not blind to the fact that the weight of 

 competent authority is against him (p. 225), we must at least be startled 

 by the boldness of the man who, without any armor of fact either on 

 the right hand or on the left, rushes like David full of self-confidence 

 against the Goliath of modern thought. The stone which is hurled 

 is indeed in one respect a stone of tremendous weight, the style of the 

 article being ponderous to a degree that borders on pomposity. But, 

 unfortunately, if there is a hole in the armor of the giant, the stone 

 has certainly failed to hit it ; and, as the modern champion of Israel 

 has evidently found the armor of fact too heavy to put on, he must 

 not now object to receiving some rough treatment at the hands of the 

 foe which he had the courage to attack. 



The allusion to the writer's evident ignorance of science leads me 

 to say at the outset that it is not my intention to waste time by trou- 

 bling him upon this subject. He expressly says in the passage already 

 quoted that he does not intend to contemplate matters of scientific 

 fact, but to discuss the whole question of evolution " on broader philo- 

 sophical grounds." It is impossible not to recognize the wisdom of 

 this resolve. When a man supposes that elemental matter is now 

 affirmed to be only one substantial form, at present subsisting in the 

 condition of a gas (the hydrogen — p. 221), or that it is the rule "in 

 the case of ophidian reptiles, serpents, etc.," that "the places assign- 

 able to the arms and legs in other animals are occupied by rudimental 

 representatives of those organs imbedded in the surrounding tissues " 

 (p. 228) ; that paleontology reveals only " a solitary case of approxi- 

 mation to the equine species " ; that the sum total of animal species 

 amounts to only one hundred and twenty thousand ; and so on — a 

 man, I say, who supposes such things, is no doubt wise to abstain 

 from "critically reviewing" scientific facts. I shall proceed to show 

 that he would have been still wiser had he also abstained from tres- 

 passing "on the broader philosophical grounds" of scientific theory. 



Taking the features of his article seriatim, we may first observe 

 that in his opening paragraphs he displays an altogether erroneous 



