67 



in miracles, then, may we not charge those who believe in life resulting 

 from the non-living with being far more credulous ? Early in Section 3 

 reference is made to one of the fundamental doctrines of evolution, namely 

 that all the changes which have taken place must have been for the ultimate 

 benefit of the creature. Well, then, may we not ask : Of what benefit could 

 it be to any terrestrial or aquatic mammal with four limbs to give up the use 

 of the two hiud limbs in order that it might be converted into a whale ? One 

 would think that the four limbs would be better than two, yet we are asked 

 to believe that certain four-limbed animals left effusing their hind limbs 

 80 that they became altogether obliterated, and that the product was a 

 whale. Again, of what use could it be to the ape to lose the grasping power 

 of the hind hand ? Surely the monkey tribe were better off with a quadruple 

 grasping power than with a dual ; but, if it be true that man was developed 

 from the ape, then he must have lost the use of the hind thumbs, retaining 

 the power of grasping in the two fore ones only. Beyond all this, of what 

 benefit could it be to the race to lose the hairy covering of their bodies ? 

 Surely it must have been better to possess a hairy covering than to have a 

 bare back ; and yet, according to the hypothesis, it must have been otherwise. 

 I was reading to-day in Dr. Pusey's sermon o;i " Unscience, not Science, 

 antagonistic to Revelation," a quotation from the late Dr. Darwin, who, 

 speaking of the work he had been doing, said, " I have at least, I hope, done 

 good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations ." Now 

 if that was his object, it was noi a very noble one, and if he has over- 

 thrown the dogma — which I don't think he has — he must have done a 

 wonderful work. I believe that, as long as common-sense men and women 

 see in the wonderful creatures around them such extraordinary examples of 

 the adaptation of means to ends, we shall be able to look the evolutionists in 

 the face and tell them that they never will be able to overthrow the truth 

 — I will not say dogma — of separate creations. I feel deeply grateful to 

 Dr. Porter for his valuable paper, and hope it will be widely circulated, as 

 it shows that those who come forward as our teachers in these matters do not 

 agree among themselves, and that they are endeavouring to make men 

 believe that mere assumptions are demonstrated facts. 



Mr. H. C. Dent. — I had the advantage of perusing Dr. Porter's paper 

 before coming here, and did so with the greatest pleasure and delight. The 

 paper, in my humble opinion, is a very clear statement of some of the 

 grandest truths of science; the aims of science, and the metaphysical deduc- 

 tions drawn from the researches of science — all urged with irresistible 

 force on our minds. I propose only to refer to one or two points in respect 

 to the origin of species and natural selection. Dr. Porter says :— 



" The crucial point in this theory is, that species may be originated by 

 natural selection. But Huxley, and Darwin himself, admit that this has 

 never been proved, Darwin, it is true, draws largely upon an infinite past. 

 He says : ' Nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selec- 

 tion.' And again : ' The mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of a 

 hvmdred million of years. It caimot add up and perceive the full efiects 

 of many slight variations accumulated during almost an infinite series of 

 generations.' '' 



