1 62 I^arwin, and after Danvin. 



to the special, from the low to the high, from the 

 simple to the complex. 



Now, the importance of these large and general 

 facts in the present connexion must be at once 

 apparent ; but it may perhaps be rendered more so if 

 we try to imagine how the case would have stood 

 supposing geological investigation to have yielded in 

 this matter an opposite result, or even so much as an 

 equivocal result. If it had yielded an opposite result, 

 if the lower geological formations were found to 

 contain as many, as diverse, and as highly organized 

 types as the later geological formations, clearly there 

 would have been no room at all for any theory of pro- 

 gressive evolution. And, by parity of reasoning, in 

 whatever degree such a state of matters were found to 

 prevail, in that degree would the theory in question 

 have been discredited. But seeing that these opposite 

 principles do not prevail in any (relatively speaking) 

 considerable degree J , we have so far positive testimony 

 of the largest and most massive character in favour of 

 this theory. For while all these large and general 

 facts are very much what they ought to be according 

 to this theory, they cannot be held to lend any 

 support at all to the rival theory. In other words, it 

 is clearly no essential part of the theory of special 

 creation that species should everywhere exhibit this 

 gradual multiplication as to number, coupled with a 

 gradual diversification and general elevation of types, 

 in all the growing branches of the tree of life. No 

 one could adopt seriously the jocular lines of Burns, 

 to the effect that the Creator required to practise his 



1 For objections which may be brought against this and similar 

 statements, see the Appendix. 



