DISCUSSION 225 



to discuss here, as it has nothing whatever to do 

 with the matter in hand. As I stated emphatically 

 at the beginning of my first lecture, I did not come 

 here with the intention of touching upon religious 

 controversy, nor did I come to wage a bitter war 

 against popular Darwinism or Haeckelism. I came 

 solely to throw what light I could upon the modern 

 doctrine of evolution. I must honestly confess 

 that I have been both surprised and pained this 

 evening at seeing how completely my intention has 

 been misunderstood. I am very sorry that such 

 is the case, but I feel no personal resentment against 

 the gentlemen whose remarks show that they have 

 misunderstood me. 



Professor Plate concluded his address with a 

 wish for religious unity I cherish similar desires 

 in that respect, although I look for the realisation of 

 these desires in a manner unlike that which he has 

 in mind. 1 



Again and again this evening I have been 

 reproached with being inconsistent, with being 

 fettered by dogma, with having no freedom of thought. 

 One speaker even went so far as to declare that I had 

 to submit every opinion to censorship before I was 

 allowed to express it. 2 



1 Religious unity based on an absolute absence of creed, and on sur- 

 rendering every dogma of Christianity, is an impossibility. Cf. my re- 

 marks upon Professor Plate's speech, p. 114. 



2 The speaker to whom I refer unhappily forgot to mention the right 

 of censorship claimed by the editor of every scientific magazine, and even 

 by the editor of every unimportant newspaper, over the intellectual pro- 

 ductions of their contributors. It is only when a religious society exercises 



P 



