io SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT 



fully admit, in a very large degree due to the 

 ignorance and the unreasonableness of its oppon- 

 ents, the religious party, chiefly, if not entirely, 

 I am glad to say, drawn from outside the ranks of 

 our own body. It has always seemed to me that in 

 cases of this kind the advice of Gamaliel is golden, 

 and that one should wait and see what the decision 

 of scientific men, at any rate, is going to be before 

 debating the question even on philosophical lines, 

 " for if this council or work be of men, it will be 

 dissolved." Such however, was not the action of 

 some of the defenders of religion ; which might 

 indeed have prayed to have been delivered from 

 its friends on this as on some other occasions. It is 

 impossible here to enter into the history of those 

 times. Those who do so will find in the speech of 

 the then Bishop of Oxford, the well-known Samuel 

 Wilberforce, a most admirable example of how 

 not to do it. In his, as in many of the speeches and 

 writings of that day, will be found a neglect of the 

 plain common-sense rule that it is well to under- 

 stand your opponent's case, and the facts upon 

 which it rests, before entering into argument with 

 him. I wish this simple lesson could be imprinted 

 on the minds of those who essay criticism of 

 Catholic doctrine and Catholic philosophy. But 

 this is too much to expect. 



Now one result of the rapid acceptance of 

 Darwin's views, the full bearing of which could 

 not accurately be appreciated at the moment, 

 was the apparent destruction of the Argument from 

 Design. Darwin asserts this himself, and asserts it 

 with regret, as might be expected from his 



