DARWIN AND NATURAL SELECTION 41 



assuming the help of a principle of design" This is 

 an excellent example of the parti pris of that dog- 

 matic Darwinism against which Driesch very 

 properly protests, pointing out that whilst Darwin 

 himself was anything but dogmatic, Darwinism 

 is dogmatism in one of its purest forms. 



It must be perfectly clear to any candid student 

 that arguments based upon foundations such as 

 this are not worth the paper they are written on 

 until it can be proved, as in fact all must admit 

 that it never can be proved, that a principle of 

 design is demonstrably non-existent. 



In opposition to the opinions just dealt with 

 are those of a very large and, it would certainly 

 seem, increasing number of scientific men of the 

 very highest standing. Those who are desirous of 

 making a more detailed study of their opinions 

 may be referred to a very useful work, to which 

 the writer of the present article wishes to make 

 his own acknowledgments.* Professor Kellog, of 

 Leland Stanford (jun.) University, who is the 

 author of this book, belongs to the school of Plate, 

 whose apologia for Darwinism is described by 

 Driesch as " scarcely more than a funeral oration 

 in accordance with the principle, de mortuis nil 

 nisi bonum" From this it will be understood that 

 Professor Kellog is in no way bigoted against 

 Darwinism, though it can scarcely be said that 

 his attitude towards religion could be described 

 in the same way. At any rate his book, if only on 

 account of the careful digests of the literature 

 given as an appendix to each chapter, is one of 



* Darwinism To-Day (1907). 



