PROF. G. F. WRIGHT AND HIS CRITICS. 767 



the weak points of the volume, because this has already been 

 done in a most excellent and exhaustive manner. The reviewers 

 are certainly to be complimented on their acumen, and we trust 

 that in a second edition Prof. Wright will take full advantage of 

 the kindness of his lynx-eyed critics. We believe that he may 

 comfort himself with the thought that the worst that could be 

 said has been said concerning his little volume. 



But while we admit that such faults as those above noted jus- 

 tify unfavorable criticism to the extent of the errors, we can not 

 for a moment allow that they warrant the one-sided, persistent, 

 and personal attacks that have been made on book and author. 

 The style of several of these is, to say the least, extra-scientific. 

 One of Prof. Wright's assailants has so far forgotten the ameni- 

 ties of debate and the consideration due to himself and his pro- 

 fession as to employ epithets which can only be correctly de- 

 scribed as " Billingsgate." Not all, we are happy to say, or even 

 the majority, have been so self-disrespectful. We will postpone 

 this case for the present. Meanwhile we propose to dissect some of 

 the other criticisms, which, being clothed in a more decent and 

 reputable dress, may lawfully claim the right to appear in public. 



Granting this freedom from indecent exposure of temper on 

 the part of most of the hostile reviews, we yet can not acquit 

 their authors of manifesting unnecessary severity and also of 

 lacking that calm judicial spirit which alone can give value to a 

 criticism. There is too little logic and too much passion mani- 

 fested in their writing. We would remind such belligerents that 

 contradiction is not logic, and that ridicule and contempt are not 

 argument. To pooh-pooh an opponent's evidence may amuse the 

 ignorant, but can not mislead the thoughtful. With these it is 

 far more likely to recoil and hurt the cause in which it is em- 

 ployed. It is surprising and at the same time somewhat amusing 

 to those outside of the fray to see weapons so unscientific em- 

 ployed in what professes to be a scientific discussion. To the pub- 

 lic the onslaught made on Prof. Wright by chiefly official geolo- 

 gists savors too strongly of the old-time, intolerant, theological 

 method of crushing a formidable rival by dint of concerted action 

 or force in default of reason. This may be altogether an unwar- 

 ranted inference ; indeed, one can not readily admit even the sup- 

 position, but it is inevitable, and for it these writers alone are re- 

 sponsible. 



Some of the critics have gone out of their way to make caus- 

 tic remarks on the profession of the author. Surely they should 

 be familiar enough with the records of Science to be aware that, 

 in spite of all the obstacles which theology has thrown in her 

 path, many theologians have risen superior to their environment, 

 and to them geology is deeply indebted. Without the labors of 



