Appendix. 97 



tinuous subsidence could go on for ages in areas widely 

 inhabited without arousing attention ? It is the one thing, 

 if true, that people must notice, whether they will or no. 



Nevertheless, Darwin's theory reigned in the Lyellian 

 school, for a while. Later on, after the criticism of Karl 

 Semper (1863), some others, but especially Murray of the 

 ' Challenger expedition c ' (a voyage which was fatal to many 

 a preconceived scientific idea), doubts began to creep in. 

 Now, observe what Darwin wrote in this connection : 

 " If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the head 

 " the better. But it still seems to me a marvellous thing that 

 " there should not have been much and long continued sub- 

 " sidence in the beds of the great oceans" See, now, what 

 a light this throws upon his mind. It is not a question 

 of particular evidence : it is, with him, a question of antici- 

 pation, expectation to find something dictated by the Lyellian 

 creed. Subsidence here, elevation there ; such is the Lyellian 

 dogma. Why not invoke it to explain Coral Islands ? 



This is just what Darwin did. And now, his theory of 

 the Origin of Species was formed in exactly the same 

 way. Examine the language in which he presents it. 

 "There may have been," "Why should there not have 

 "been?" "I can see no reason why there should not 

 " have been," these and similar phrases constantly recur 

 and make up his exposition. He has absolutely nothing 

 to offer in support of his theory but conjecture and false 

 analogy. To argue from facts drawn from one sphere 

 (South America, artificial selection) to results in another 

 (Coral Islands, Nature) was the essence of his procedure. 



c Of which a most delectable popular account is the Log Letters 

 of Lord George Campbell. 



H 



