316 DR. J. D. HOOKER’S PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, 
been controverted by that champion of natural selection, Mr. Darwin’s -— 
knight, Alfred aean in his papers on ‘ Protection’ and ‘ Creation by Law, 
etc., in which the doctrines of ‘ Continual Interference,’ and the ‘ Theory of 
Beauty,’ and Metus subjects, are discussed with admirable sagacity, know- 
ledge, and skill. But of Mr. Wallace and his many contributions to philoso- 
phical biology it is not easy to speak without enthusiasm, for, putting aside their 
reat merits, he, eii his writings, with a modesty as rare as I believe 
it to be unconscious, forgets his own unquestioned claims to the honour of 
having originated, ec of Mr. Darwin, the theories which he so ably 
defends. 
“On the score of geology, the objectors rely chiefly on the assumed perfec- 
tion of the geological record ; and since almost all who believe in its imperfec- 
tion, and many of the other school, accept the theories both of evolution and 
the great rae of geologists. Of these, one is in himself a host, the veteran 
to establishing the ‘doctrine of ipit creations, abandons it 
of an insecure doctrine, when he finds that he can underpin it, and substitu 
a new foundation, and, after all is finished, survey his edifice, not only more 
secure, but more harmonious in its proportions, than it was before ; for as- 
in harmony with the doctrine of slow changes im the history of our planet, 
than were their counterparts in the former editions. 
“To the astronomer's objections to these d I turn with diffidence ; 
critique of th I have hitherto sie with, and which ap in the 
North British Review. It is anonym a "i of its 
author, et to hat, in common with the few other really able 
in's considerate treatment of his opponents’ methods and con- 
clusions. In estimates that are calculated from data that are themselves hypo- 
thetical in a great degree, there are no pops upon which we are warranted 
in assuming the speculations of the astronomer to be more worthy of confidence 
than those of the biologist. No o science is ily perfect, —certainly not tha 
which lately erred 2,000,000 miles in so fundamental a datum as the eart 
distance from the sun. Have Yeidé iil Von Beer interpreted no oracles of 
nature fully and clearly? Have Cuvier and Dalton not prophesied, and been 
true prophets ? 
