2 SUMMARY. 



Rome, and is a mere truism so far as there is any meaning in it, 

 p. 8. The doctrine of Evolution by ' Natural Selection ' is now so 

 associated with Mr. Darwin's name, that it has come to be desig- 

 nated ' DARWINISM.' Nay, the doctrine in general is now confoun- 

 ded under that name, p. 9. According to the doctrine of Evolu- 

 tion, Mankind are merely the sons and daughters of Apes ; which 

 latter were themselves descendants, through the lowest mammals, 

 of frogs and fishes ; whilst those fishes came from an ascidian 

 mollusk," which itself descended, through worms and protozoa, from 

 a spontaneously generated cytode, p. 10. The time occupied in 

 this assumed series of evolutions has been inconceivably long ; but 

 to speak of it as indicating the antiquity of man is to confound in 

 the calculation the altogether different question of the antiquity of 

 Manas Man, p. n. Mr. Darwin thinks that the fundamentally 

 similar construction of the human arm and hand, for example, the 

 fore legs and feet of quadrupeds, wings of bats, flappers of seals, 

 paddles of whales, and wings of birds, inexplicable on any other 

 supposition than common descent, p. n. But such similarity of 

 plan in construction does not logically prove that animals must 

 have been evolved in the manner alleged, p. 12. That every thing 

 was created by design and for a purpose is perfectly explanatory to 

 common sense, and in no way contradicted by Science, p. 13. Rudi- 

 mentary organs alleged to be ' instruments without use,' but they 

 are certainly in no case without a use of some kind in the economy 

 in which they occur, p. 14. The limbs and lungs of the frog come 

 into use when they come into existence, while the tail and gills of 

 the tadpole fall out of use in proportion as they shrink and disap- 

 pear. This takes place according to a law of the economy of the 

 frog, not by use or disuse, p. 1 6. According to the Evolution doctrine, 

 it depended on the chance of circumstances whether the pretended 

 transmutations of structure took place nfthis or that manner, p. 21. 

 The transitional resemblances observable in the form and structure 

 of animals from worms up to man indicate not evolution but unity 

 of design and designer, p. 22. To Evolutionists, however, trans- 

 itional resemblances are inexplicable except on the assumption of 

 lineal descent, p. 22. Homologies of structure have been long ago 

 traced out in more or less detail, but their demonstration does 

 not in any way really help the doctrine of Evolution, p. 24. As to 

 the alleged evolution of man from apes and the affinity between 

 him and them, it is to be observed that though the tail-less apes 

 have a counterfeit presentment of the human form, they are unmis- 



