i52 THE CANADIAN NATURALIST. [Vol. 



Vll. 



science or to relioion. And I will here in defence of science as- 

 sert that there is a greater proportion of its votaries who now 

 revere and honor religion in its broadest sense, as understood by 

 the Christain world, than that of any other of the learned secular • 

 pursuits. 



THE EVOLUTION THEORY. 



This subject elicited a somewhat lengthy discussion, in which 

 Principal Dawson, Prof. Morse, Prof. Swallow and Prof. Gill." 

 took part. The following is the substance of Principal Dawson's 

 and Prof. Morse's remarks : 



Dr. Dawson began by stating with some fullness of detail the 

 demands upon our credence made by the advocates of the evolu- 

 tion theory. Among other requirements of the theory, he said it 

 must provide an explanation of the origin of life. To accomplish 

 this the experiments of Bastian were brought forward. Refer- 

 ring to these, he stated that no less an authority than Prof. Hux- 

 ley, though an evolutionist, had denied their conclusive character 

 and disputed the alleged results. We are expected to admit, in 

 every department to which scientific inquiry relates, that in all 

 things there has been a successive progress from the lower to the 

 higher. Why should we make this admission? AVhat proof is 

 there of it? The recent discoveries of embryology, showing the 

 likeness of early forms of the embryo to other animals of the 

 same families, furnished to the advocates of evolution no real ar- 

 gument in its favor. They proved nothing. Admit, if you will,, 

 the close resemblance of similar bones and general physical struc- 

 ture in the ape and man, it is not the slightest evidence of^" 

 identity. While it may be true that there is bone for bone in 

 monkey and in man. still it remains tliat the bones of one are 

 different from those of the other. The making of monkey and of 

 man is explicable quite as readily, to say the least, on the theory 

 of plan as on that of evolution. The history of the growth of an 

 animal has been cited as the evidence of a development from a 

 lower to a hiiiher form. But what are the facts in the case?' 

 The egg grows into the animal, and that organism produces an-, 

 egg again. This is revolution, not evolution. 



We are told to accept as a postulate that mind too is the re-^ 

 suit of development ; that the moral as well as the material being 

 is simply a consequence of the evolving process. I do not grudge- 

 the naturalists who have adopted such theories the intellectual 



