104 THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. 



phologie and the " History of Creation," and he expressly 

 states that his experience points to the same conclusions. 

 It is impossible not to appreciate his gi'eat wisdom in not 

 himself applying the Theory of Descent to Man, in his lirst 

 work ; for the inference was of a sort to raise the stronofest 

 prejudices against the entire doctrine. It was at first only 

 necessary to establish the theory in relation to the species 

 of animals and plants. Its application to Man then inevit- 

 ably followed sooner or later. 



It is most important to understand this connection 

 rightly. If all organisms have sprung from a common root, 

 Man is also included in this common descent. But if, on 

 the contrary, each separate kind or species of organism has 

 been separately created, then Man was also " created, not 

 evolved." Between these two oj^posite views lies our 

 choice ; and this decisive alternative cannot be often 

 enough and prominently enough placed in the foreground. 

 Either aU the various species of the vegetable and animal 

 kingdoms are of supernatural origin, created, not evolved — 

 in which case Man is also the product of a supernatural act 

 of creation, as is assumed in all the various systems of 

 religious belief; or, the various species and classes of the 

 animal and vegetable kingdoms have evolved from a few 

 common and most simple ancestral forms ; and if this is the 

 case, man himself is the latest product of the evolution of j 

 the genealogical tree of animals. 



The connection between the two maybe conciselj'' stated! 

 as follows : the Descent of Man from lower animals is al 

 special deductive laiv, necessarily folloiving from the general] 

 inductive law of the entire Doctrine of Descent. This] 

 sentence formulates the relation most clearly and simply. 



