XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 467 
hypothesis; in this case all you can say is, 
that your hypothesis is in the same position as a 
good many others. 
Now, as to the third test, that there are no 
other causes competent to explain the phenomena, — 
I explained to you that one should be able to say 
of an hypothesis, that no other known causes than 
those supposed by it are competent to give rise to 
the phenomena, Here, I think, Mr. Darwin’s 
view is pretty strong. I really believe that the 
alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I 
do not know of any rational conception or theory 
of the organic universe which has any scientific 
position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s. I do not 
know of any proposition that has been put before 
us with the intention of explaining the phenomena 
of organic nature, which has in its favour a 
thousandth part of the evidence which may be ad- 
duced in favour of Mr. Darwin’s views. Whatever 
may be the objections to his views, certainly all 
other theories are absolutely out of court. 
Take the Lamarckian hypothesis, for example. 
Lamarck was a great naturalist, and to a certain 
extent went the right way to work; he argued 
from what was undoubtedly a true cause of some 
of the phenomena of organic nature. He said it 
is a matter of experience that an animal may be 
modified more or less in consequence of its desires 
and consequent actions. Thus, if a man exercise 
himself as a blacksmith, his arms will become. 
HH 2 
