A SCIENTIFIC CREED OUTWORN. 91 
to the modifications made by recent science in connection 
with the Darwinian theory. This is what he said among 
other things: “The principle of natural selection cannot 
have been the chief factor in delimiting the species of ani- 
mals and plants. We go to Darwin for his incomparable 
collection of facts. We would fain emulate his scholar- 
ship, his width and his power of exposition, but to us 
he speaks no more with philosophical authority. We 
have done with the notion that Darwin came latterly to 
favor, that large differences can arise by accumulation of 
small differences.” 
St. George Mivart as long as thirty years ago wrote 
an exhaustive treatise entitled, “The Genesis of Species,’ 
in which he subjects the Darwinian hypothesis to a 
searching examination, and discards it as unproven in 
every particular and contradicted by the facts of nature 
in many points. He called it “a puerile (childish) hypo- 
thesis.”’ 
Professor H. H. Gran of Christiana University, an 
expert in biology, says he believes in evolution, but de- 
clares Darwin’s explanation of it to be inadequate. His 
words are: “Darwin collected a great mass of stuff both 
from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom, 
but these collections were not thoroughly sifted and can- 
not be used as the basis of theoretical conclusions as 
Darwin did.” 
Prof. Fleischman, of Erlangen, says: “There is not a 
single fact to confirm Darwinism in the realm of Nature.” 
Drs. E. Dennert, Hoppe and von Hartmann; Profs. Paul- 
son and Rutemeyer, and the talented scientists Zoeckler 
and Max Wundt, have given up Darwinism. Men like 
our own H. F. Osborn may still cling to the beloved the- 
ory and furnish imaginary pictures of ape-men as proof, 
in recent books; but hear Prof. Ernest Haeckel himself: 
