572* POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



suddenly appear in it; or should he say that he had seen near 

 the ground a mass of cloud which, contracting and getting more 

 dense, assumed the form of an unknown animal, what comment 

 should we make ? Simply that he was either deluding himself or 

 trying to delude us. We should show by our ridicule that the 

 idea of a special creation, when brought distinctly before us by 

 alleged cases, is too absurd to be entertained. 



See, then, the antithesis. While the hypothesis of organic 

 evolution is indirectly supported by great masses of observed 

 facts, the hypothesis of special creation is not only without indi- 

 rect support from observed facts, but is indirectly contraindicated 

 by the enormous accumulation of observed facts constituting our 

 daily experience. 



Striking as this antithesis is, it becomes still more striking 

 when we contemplate the two hypotheses under another aspect. 

 Lord Salisbury implies that in the absence of observed facts di- 

 rectly proving the formation of a species by natural selection, the 

 hypothesis of natural selection can not be sustained. He says : 

 " I think Prof. Weismann is justified in saying that we can not, 

 either with more or less ease, imagine the process of natural selec- 

 tion " ; and he presently implies that in the absence of positive 

 proof the hypothesis of natural selection is "mere conjecture." 

 Let me in the first place point out that Prof. Weismann's mean- 

 ing is here seriously misrepresented. In the passage Lord Salis- 

 bury refers to, Prof. Weismann says of natural selection : " We 

 accept it not because we are able to demonstrate the process in 

 detail ; not even because we can with more or less ease imagine it 

 [in detail], but simply because ive must, etc." And that this is 

 his meaning is proved by the fact that a previous passage to 

 which he refers by the words " as already indicated," runs as fol- 

 lows : " For it is really very difficult to imagine this process of 

 natural selection in its details." Surely there is an immense dif- 

 ference between the meaning intended and the meaning ascribed. 

 It is perfectly easy to imagine that a flying cannon-ball will pres- 

 ently fall and do damage, while it may be " very difficult to im- 

 agine," " in its details," the damage it will do. But, passing over 

 this, let us now consider whether, in the absence of observed facts 

 proving the production of a species by natural selection, we have 

 warrant for the theory of natural selection. 



I have always regretted that Mr. Darwin chose this phrase to 

 describe his hypothesis. The word "selection" connotes a con- 

 scious process, and so involves a tacit personalization of Nature. 

 By tacitly personalizing that aggregate of surrounding agencies 

 which we call Nature, it introduces vaguely the idea that Nature 

 may select as a human breeder selects can select and increase a 



