70 
it is impossible to conceive the mode by which this development is originated. 
A two or a three-celled heart can be conceived, but how can a two-celled © 
heart become three-celled? It is true that we may find rudimentary 
organs which may be taken as the transition point ; but those rudimentary 
organs do not necessarily prove evolution, because a rudimentary organ must 
be useless in the intermediate stage. This seems to be the weak point of the 
hypothesis. How far the modifications of a species may go is a fair matter 
for inquiry. That these are less than is commonly imagined is undoubtedly 
proved by evidence, Until the laws of heredity are properly understood, 
and the mysterious laws of reversion are made clear, it is a bold assumption 
that there is any gradual change in all directions, which is the foundation of 
the evolution theory ; and I would again ask, in regard to what is one of the 
great difficulties of the whole system, ‘“ How, by a small gradual change, 
can two become four?” Until we have answered this question, we shall not 
have got over the difficulty. The theory of Haeckel is that chance varia- 
tions are at the bottom of the whole matter. I hold that the writings of 
these popular evolutionists are impossible to think out unless they call in 
some other factor such as I have referred to. When they have to call in 
the aid of fairies, and so forth, there is pretty good evidence that, for sober 
thought, we want something a great deal stronger than they have advanced. 
The result is that we must have a creative mind and a creative idea. 
(Applause.) 
A Memper here wished to point out that, when the lecturer had intro- 
duced a figure of speech—saying, “‘ The constant cry of the plants was, ‘ Give 
us carbon!’ and of animals, which are consumers, ‘Give us oxygen !’” 
he implied that, on the part of the plants and animals, there must have been 
a concentration of effort in a particular direction. Therefore he should 
not have quarrelled with Mr. Grant Allen doing the same in regard to the 
horse-chestnut. 
Mr. Hassett.—I quote Mr. Grant Allen’s own words. He says: 
“Nuts have concentrated all their efforts upon repelling rather than 
upon attracting the attention of animals.” I only use a_ figure of 
speech in speaking of a fact in botany; but in Mr. Grant Allen’s case, 
he does not claim to use a mere figure of speech. He says the “nuts have 
concentrated their efforts,” and thereby he attributes to the nuts a conscious 
faculty. What I imply is, that the want of the plant is carbon, and that 
of the animal oxygen, and I do not think I am open to the charge of doing 
any wrong to Mr. Grant Allen in what I say of him. I may also state that, 
in opposition to the articles of faith which I do not subscribe to, I 
have given two articles to which I do subscribe; these I maintain 
are reasonable, and should be constantly brought before the young, when- 
ever there is an opportunity. It is the duty of every teacher to impress 
upon his hearers the fact that it is more reasonable to believe that plants 
and animals were made by an intelligent Being, than that they formed them- 
selves. And it is the duty of every believer in Creation to fearlessly assert 
that belief. I quite agree with what Mr. Howard has said, and thank him 
for his remark about the heart: I believe that the heart and the blood 
