330 SPARKS FROM A GEOLOGIST'S HAMMER. 



Let the lecturer stand up and testify again. " My 

 present business is not with the question as to how na- 

 ture has originated! The question * * * about crea- 

 tion is a philosophical question, and one which cannot be 

 solved or even approached by the historical method!" 

 Well, we can hardly find terms in which to characterize 

 this procedure. The lecturer is promising to demonstrate 

 that the " creation theory " is " untenable," and then, first 

 of all, coolly tells us his present business is not with cre- 

 ation, since this is a philosophical question, and cannot 

 be even approached by his methods. He then directs his 

 artillery against something which he knows and admits 

 is not creation, and at the end turns to us and says: "I 

 told you I should demolish the 'creation theory,' and you 

 see how handsomely I have done it!" 



Now, I demand the reader's verdict that this proceed- 

 ing has not accomplished what the distinguished lecturer 

 claimed; that it is a proceeding little creditable to scien- 

 tific discernment, and that Professor Huxley's whole treat- 

 ment of the " creation theory " is perverted, disingenuous, 

 illogical and farcical. 



2. The evidences adduced in support of the evolution hy- 

 pothesis are not demonstrative, as claimed. We think Pro- 

 fessor Huxley has been carried away by enthusiasm in af- 

 firming evolution inductively " demonstrated," or in any 

 way demonstrated. Still less is it demonstrated by a simple 

 appeal to palseontological evidence. The final conclusion 

 is even beyond the reach of inductive evidence; and if it 

 were not, the inductive argument could never amount to 

 a demonstration. The data of induction may justify the 

 conclusion that gently graduated series of animals have 

 succeeded each other in past time ; but this is no proof 



