162 A THEORY OF LIFE 



give rise to a suspicion as to our sanity ; then we 

 know a thing, but not until then. Now, as to 

 the sentence quoted, we may allow the first part 

 to pass unchallenged with some possible demur 

 at the use of the word " chain." The second 

 so-called piece of knowledge was doubted by no 

 less an authority than the late Adam Sedgwick. 

 The third assertion plainly and distinctly is not 

 the case ; for Science knows nothing whatsoever 

 about the origin of man's body. In 1901 Branco, 

 a distinguished palaeontologist, with no Theistic 

 leanings as far as we know, told the world that 

 man appears on our planet as " a genuine homo 

 novus, and that palaeontology " knows no ancestors 

 of man." Nor has any discovery since that date 

 necessitated the modification of that opinion. 

 What the writer means by saying " We know " is 

 " / am convinced " ; but, with the deepest 

 respect for his undoubted position, the two 

 things are not quite identical. " Biology, like 

 theology, has its dogmas. Leaders have their 

 disciples and blind followers." Wise words ! 

 They are those of the author with whom we are 

 dealing. To say " we know " when really we 

 only surmise is a misuse of language, just as it is 

 also a misuse to ask the question " Does nature 

 make a departure from its previously ordered 

 procedure and substitute chance for law ? " since 

 the ordinary reader is all too apt to forget that 

 " Nature " is a mere abstraction, and that to speak 

 of Nature doing such or such a thing helps us in 

 no way along the road towards an explanation of 

 things. 



