ON 'I'lIK (jenktk; vikw of natuke. 



.S 1 9 



Natural History of Creation.' This book cuuLaiiied a very 

 clear and popularly intelligible statement of the genetic 

 or development hypothesis as applied to cosmic, geolog- 

 ical, and organic phenomena. The importance of the 

 book did not lie in its own original L(intri])utions, but in 

 the great controversy Nvhich it occasioned. In this con- 

 troversy most of the arguments for and against the 



with an introduction, in wliieli he 

 " tohl for the first time " the "story 

 of the authorship." It is of interest, 

 after the hipse of liah" a century, to 

 read the various — mostly liostile — 

 criticisms of the book in the reviews 

 and magazines of the day. The 

 attacks came from two distinct 

 sides : from scientific authorities, 

 who — each in his own specific 

 branch — -challenged the correctness 

 of single facts, mostly without in- 

 quiring whether, in spite of many 

 misstatements, sufficient evidence 

 was not after all adduced to prove 

 the main thesis ; and, secondly, 

 from both scientific and jiopular 

 writers, who used the well-known 

 arguments, that the teaching of the 

 book was unorthodox, both in a 

 religious and scientific sense. In 

 fact, they disjilayed in a great 

 degree scientific and religious dog- 

 matism and intolerance, and in some 

 cases considerable temper. To this 

 larger section of the critical attacks 

 belonged the reviews in all the 

 leading periodicals of the day, 

 headed by the ' Edinburgh Re- 

 view ' (Adam Sedgwick), the ' North 

 British ' (Sir David Brewster), the 

 'Eclectic,' the 'North American' 

 (Boweu and Asa Gray), the ' Brit- 

 ish Quarterly.' Tolerance and a[)- 

 pieciation were, however, shown 

 by some of those more recent re- 

 views which were professedly the 

 organs of freedom, enlightenment, 

 and progress, notably the ' Pros- 

 pective ' (E. W. Newman) and the 

 ' Westminster ' in two articles, in 



the first of which the genetic view 

 of the ' Vestiges ' is suggestively 

 contrasted with the purely descrip- 

 tive of the ' Kosmos.' Looking at 

 the whole controveisy, the ' West- 

 minster Review ' (.\liii. 130) seems, 

 in the light of history, justified iu 

 maintaining that, after " having 

 attentively considered the objec- 

 tions which have been uiged in 

 numei'ous able criticisms to the 

 theory and the arguments of the 

 author," after noting that " learned 

 men have discovered that he is less 

 familiar than they with the pedantry 

 of science," tliat " they have 

 triumphed in the detection of slips 

 of the pen, mistakes in technicali- 

 ties, and some inaccuracies of fact," 

 the conclusion is nevertheless justi- 

 fied that " these detract but little 

 from the merit of a work which 

 may be fairly chaiacterised as the 

 most skilful generalisation ihat has 

 yet (1848) apj)eared of the results of 

 geological, astronomical, aud physi- 

 ological researches made to bear 

 ujjon the history of the first and 

 most momentous of all problems — 

 the order and plan of creation." 

 It is known that some scientific 

 men of first rank, such as Baden 

 Bowell of O.xford, and the lihysi- 

 ologist W. B. Carpenter (who, 

 according to Huxlej', was the only 

 authoiity in this ('nuiitry ac(|uainted 

 with the 'Entwickelunnsgeschichte' 

 of von Baer), distinctly supported 

 the doctrine of the ' Vestiges ' ; and 

 Darwin himself, who had studied 

 the ' Vestiges ' with evident cai-e 



