eo 
7 
trolling outside Intelligence,—which preserves all the varieties best 
adapted to the surrounding constantly changing circumstances— 
thereby preducing ever new forms in the lapse of ages, and merci- 
lessly converting unadaptable species and individuals into ‘‘ extinct” 
forms. 
We cannot deny this so far as artificial selection is concerned ; 
new varieties of dogs, horses, pigeons, roses, dahlias, geraniums, 
are manufactured, one might almost say, every year. And some of 
these (e.g. pigeons) differ so much from each other, that if we had 
found the kinds wild in a strange country we should unhesitatingly 
and justifiably have put them down as distinct species. 
The question that follows immediately upon this is,—Is there 
any limit to this variation? Does it only occur within well-defined 
bounds, or may it go on until we get an indisputably new form, 
‘e.g. ® cowslip from a primrose, a dog from a wolf, or two totally 
new species of bird from a wild canary ? , 
And here I think I must leave you to take up these questions. 
I have endeavoured to put the theory before you in plain language 
without espousing one side or the other. 
It must not be forgotten however that our own origin is included 
in the theory by most though not by all its advocates. Not, as I 
said at starting, that we are supposed to be descended from any 
known kind of ape,—gorilla or other, but that they and we are alike 
descendants of some one ancestor in the far Past who was neither 
ape nor human, but still Darwin says a ‘hairy tailed quadruped.” 
This however, would best form a subject for discussion by itself. 
The Rev. J. Burgess said he thought that, so far as Mr. Ullyett 
had gone, they were all agreed. 
The Chairman.—Mr. Ullyett has very judiciously expressed no 
opinion one way or the other. 
Mr. Ullyett said his own opinion was that it would be better to 
place the theory cf Darwinism before the meeting, and then some 
other gentleman could take one side or the other. 
Dr. Fitzgerald said Mr. Ullyett had dwelt upon the fact that 
Darwin was not an atheist ; on the contrary, anyone who read his 
works must have seen that they were written by a man of distinct 
religious convictions. It was said that science and religion were 
antagonistic, but he did not think a greater mistake could be made. 
A thoroughly scientific man must of necessity be a religious man. 
There was, of course, the objection one could not help touching 
upon, viz., tbat the teaching of science and the teaching of the Bible 
Were apparently at variance. This, he believed, to be utterly 
untrue. The Bible was not meant to teach them science; 
it was intended to teach them higher and more valuable 
truths. The holy men whose writings had been transmitted 
