DISCUSSION 225 



to discuss here, as it has nothing whatever to do 

 with the matter hi hand. As I stated emphatically 

 at the beginning of my first lecture, I did not come 

 here with the intention of touching upon religious 

 controversy, nor did I come to wage a bitter war 

 against popular Darwinism or Haeckelism. I came 

 solely to throw what light I could upon the modern 

 doctrine of evolution. I must honestly confess 

 that I have been both surprised and pained this 

 evening at seeing how completely my intention has 

 been misunderstood. I am very sorry that such 

 is the case, but I feel no personal resentment against 

 the gentlemen whose remarks show that they have 

 misunderstood me. 



Professor Plate concluded his address with a 

 wish for religious unity I cherish similar desires 

 in that respect, although I look for the realisation of 

 these desires in a manner unlike that which he has 

 hi mind. 1 



Again and again this evening I have been 

 reproached with being inconsistent, with being 

 fettered by dogma, with having no freedom of thought. 

 One speaker even went so far as to declare that I had 

 to submit every opinion to censorship before I was 

 allowed to express it. 2 



1 Religious unity based on an absolute absence of creed, and on sur 

 rendering every dogma of Christianity, is an impossibility. Cf. my re 

 marks upon Professor Plate s speech, p. 114. 



2 The speaker to whom I refer unhappily forgot to mention the right 

 of censorship claimed by the editor of every scientific magazine, and even 

 by the editor of every unimportant newspaper, over the intellectual pro 

 ductions of their contributors. It is only when a religious society exercises 



P 



