350 THE HISTORY OF CREATION, 
This lamentable estrangement between science and philo- 
sophy, and the rude empiricism which is now-a-days unfortu- 
nately praised by most naturalists as “exact science,” have 
given rise to those strange freaks of the understanding, to 
those gross insults against elementary logic, and to that in- 
capacity for forming the simplest conclusions which one 
may meet with any day in all branches of science, but 
especially in zoology and botany. It is here that the 
neglect of a philosophical culture and training of the mind, 
directly avenges itself most painfully. It is not to be 
wondered at that the deep inner truth of the Theory of 
Descent remains a sealed book to those rude empiricists. 
As the common proverb justly says: they cannot see the 
wood for the trees. It is only by a more general philoso- 
phical study, and especially by a more strictly logical train- 
ing of the mind, that this sad state of things can be 
remedied. (Compare Gen. Morph. i. 63; it. 447.) 
If we rightly consider this circumstance, and if we 
further reflect upon it in connection with the empirical 
foundation of the philosophical theory of development, we 
shall at once see how we are placed respecting the oft- 
demanded proofs of the theory of descent. The more the 
doctrine of filiation has of late years made way for itself, 
and the more all thoughtful, younger naturalists, and all 
truly biologically-educated philosophers have become con- 
vinced of its inner truth and absolute necessity, the louder 
have its opponents called for actual proofs. The same 
persons who, shortly after the publication of Darwin’s work, 
declared it to be “a groundless, fantastic system,’ an 
“arbitrary speculation,” an “ingenious dream,” now kindly 
condescend to declare that the theory of descent certainly 
