97 



of years ago, on this earth, and "became the " promise and potency" 

 in the words of another of them of every single species of the 

 whole of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, of body, soul, and 

 spirit. And this nonsense not from some obscure " man of 

 science," some mere "professor," but from a President of the 

 British Association at one of its annual meetings, and repeated, 

 either by him or some one else, I forget which, at the following 

 meeting. 



I only ask, what next? Surely " the force of folly can no 

 further go ! " Nevertheless, if it can, I have no doubt but that it 

 will. The "Use of the Imagination in Science" (Tyndall) will 

 come to the help of some of our nineteenth-century " Philosophers," 

 and each will out-Herod Herod in puerile absurdities like this to 

 the end of their short chapter. 



I am far from being alone in this opinion. I had the following, 

 one of a large number of similar most gratifying expressions, 

 from one who has held the very highest office in the State, 

 that of Lord Chancellor, speaking of my " ALL THE ARTICLES 

 OF THE DARWIN FAITH." 



" your valuable exposure of Darwinism, and most heartily 



thank you for it. I believe that your mode of treating the 

 preposterous fictions of Darwin is the only way to shake the 

 self-confident tone of would-be philosophers. Newton's grandest 

 saying, after * Deus non est ^Eternitas, sed jEtemusJ was 

 4 hypotheses non Jingo. 1 Newton kept back his Pnncipia for years 

 because a mistake had been made in the measurement of an arc 

 of the meridian, so closely did he keep to experimental truth 

 Now the crude fancy nothing like so ingenious as the Ptolemaic 

 cycles, because, really, the Darwin fancy stumbles at every 

 step is exalted into a rank exceeding that of the discovery of 

 gravitation. In a clever sermon by Pritchard, now Savilian 

 Professor at Oxford, and formerly President of the Royal 

 Astronomical Society, preached before the British Association 

 when Grove presided, he exposes the folly of this stuff, and in 

 his Appendix to a print of it proves that the chances against the 

 eye being formed by development are more in number than 

 those of Darwin's book being taken by the printer to pieces and 



