S3 THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT. 



These phrases are hiterchangeable, but, hke all dogma- 

 tism, they make a great impression on those who from 

 ignorance of the facts are incapable of criticising for 

 themselves, and they are readily quoted to confute an 

 unbelieving investigation of nature by one made in 

 faith. 



It might be thought that if the affair were so simple, 

 and systematic ideas so firmly fixed, nothing would be 

 easier than to establish the system. And so Agassiz 

 maintains. He says that if a single species of any of 

 the great animal groups were present, and admitted of 

 investigation, the character of die type, class, family, 

 genus, and species, might be determined. The weak- 

 ness of this and similar statements may best be demon- 

 strated by examining the basis of all dogmatic system, 

 — the " species." If this idea be mutable, if the species 

 be not given once for all, but variable, according to 

 time and circumstances, the implications of the higher 

 and more general ideas of genus, family, &c., must 

 necessarily ensue. The keenest and most logical criti- 

 cism on the deeply-rooted scholastic idea of "species" 

 v/as made by Haeckel,'"^'^ after Darwin, in his classical 

 u^ork on the " Origin of Species," had completely ex- 

 posed the old doctrine and practice of zoology and 

 botany. In what follows we shall adhere to Haeckel. 



We have seen above that Linnaeus accepted the Crea- 

 tion as an irrevocable scriptural doctrine, and it is really 

 absurd that many naturalists who have long abandoned 

 any other dogm.a, should abide by this one. Therefore 

 as the Bible mentions the creation of species, this legend 

 was made the basis of all science. It is true there are 

 net now many wIto appeal to scriptural testimony, 



