5S0 APPENDIX. 



addition to that address before the Literary and Philosophical 

 Society of Liverpool, in which he first set forth the leading 

 ideas of his volume; and we may fitly, in this imaginary addi- 

 tion, adopt the manner in which he delights. 



" Observe, gentlemen," we may suppose him saying, " I 

 have here the yolk of an egg. The evolutionists, using their 

 jargon, say that one of its characters is e homogeneity; J and 

 if you do not examine your thoughts, perhaps you may think 

 that the word conveys some idea. But now if I translate it 

 into plain English and say that one of the characters of this 

 yolk is *' all-alikeness/ you at once perceive how nonsensical 

 is their statement. You see that the substance of the yolk is 

 not all-alike, and that therefore all-alikeness cannot be one of 

 its attributes. Similarly with the other pretentious term 

 ' heterogeneity. 7 which, according to them, describes the state 

 things are brought to by what they call evolution. It is mere 

 empty sound, as is manifest if I do but transform it, as I did 

 the other, and say instead ' not-all-alikeness.' For on show- 

 ing you this chick into which the yolk of the egg turns, you 

 will see that ( not-all-alikeness ' is a character which cannot 

 be claimed for it. How can any one say that the parts of the 

 chick are not-all-alike? Again, in their blatant language 

 we are told that evolution is carried on by continuous i dif- 

 ferentiations; ' and they would have us believe that this word 

 expresses some fact. But if we put instead of it ' something- 

 elseifications ' the delusion they try to practise on us becomes 

 clear. How can they say that while the parts have been form- 

 ing themselves, the heart has been becoming something else 

 than the stomach, and the leg something else than the 

 wing, and the head something else than the tail? The 

 like manifestly happens when for ' integrations ' we read 

 ' sticktogetherations: ' what sense the term might seem to 

 have, becomes obvious nonsense when the substituted word 

 is used. For nobody dares assert that the parts of the chick 

 stick together any more than do the parts of the yolk. I need 

 hardly show you that now when I take a portion of the yolk 

 between my fingers and pull, and now when I take any part 

 of the chick, as the leg, and pull, the first resists just as much 

 as the last — the last does not stick together any more than the 

 first; so that there has been no progress in ' sticktogethera- 

 tions.' And thus, gentlemen, you perceive that these big 

 words which, to the disgrace of the Royal Society, appear even 

 in papers published by it, are mere empty bladders which these 



