44 UNEXPLAINED ORIGINS. 
Shakespeare and the moral nature of a Paul were, es- 
sentially or potentially (capable of development), in the 
star fish and the jelly fish. The difference is not one of 
kind but of development and degree. Man has these 
faculties developed, the animals have them undeveloped. 
In the “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,’ published 
by his son, is a letter from Mr. Darwin to W. Graham, 
written in 1881, from which I quote the following: “TI 
have no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all 
astray. Nevertheless, you have expressed my inward 
conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I 
could have done. But then, with me, the horrid doubt 
always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, 
which has been developed from the lower animals, are 
of any value, or are at all trustworthy.” Again he says 
(p. 528), in another letter written to Sir C. Lyell: 
“Grant a simple archetypal creature, like the mud-fish or 
lepidosiren (mud eel) with five senses and some vestige 
of mind, and I believe natural selection will account for 
the production of every vertebrate animal, including, of 
course, man.”’ 
Observe that this language is very definite. It says 
that the mind of man, with all its wonderful attributes 
and faculties, was evolved from the mind of the lower 
animals—and he goes as low as the mud-fish and the 
eel that live in the slime of the swamps. Now, whoever 
wishes to believe such a preposterous assumption can do 
so. He is able to believe almost anything, and to disbe- 
lieve everything. Mr. Darwin himself says he looks 
upon man’s convictions as of no value, because they are 
the convictions of a mind derived from the mind of lower 
animals; nor can one blame him for being skeptical. 
Our point, however, is that there is such a tremendous 
difference between the intellectual and moral faculties 
