THEORIES OP NATUBAI; SELECTION AND DESIGN. iJO 



on up to a culminating point in the tropics — the tropic of Cancer on the 

 one side, and the tropic of Capricorn on the other. The highest ground is 

 towards the tropics, and the lowest towards the poles. If this were re- 

 versed, and the culminating point given to the poles with the lowest ground 

 towards the equator, what would be the result ? You would have the 

 tropics burnt up by torrid heat, and what is now the temperate zone nearly 

 all frozen, while, if you went far north, there would be one scene of eternal 

 frost and death. It would be a most extraordinary thing if the molecules 

 of the earth had so arranged all this. Surely it would be a much more 

 wonderful thing, and a greater strain upon our faith, to believe such a 

 doctrine than to hold that it was designed by an infinitely wise Creator. 

 I agree with Mr. James in thinking that this paper might have been 

 advantageously enlarged. It could not be expected that we should take it 

 for granted that the theory of evolution is in any way proved, and, for 

 my own part, I am of opinion that special creation, within the limits I 

 have put before you, is by far the more reasonable view to take, and 

 answers much more satisfactorily every question arising in this great and 

 important controversy. (Hear, hear.) 



Mr. W. P. James, F.L.S. — As I have only been called upon to read the 

 paper, I am, of course, not responsible for it, and therefore cannot be expected 

 to reply to what has been advanced during this discussion. Indeed, I may say 

 there are, several points on which I do not concur with the writer ; but in 

 his absence it would hardly be fair to bring into prominence those matters 

 on which I differ from him. I am glad to see the reference to Dr. 

 Asa Gray, although it is, I think, too brief : Asa Gray is the most 

 eminent representative of the school of naturalists who think that a 

 strict theism may be combined with a system of evolution ; and, to 

 those who like to take their stand on that platform, I fancy his 

 books present the argument in the most tenable shape in which it can be 

 urged. The remarks I previously ventured to make were almost entirely 

 confined to the part of the essay which treats of natural selection. 

 This is not the same thing as evolution ; it is merely a part of it. But 

 with reference to the theory of descent — that is to say, the derivation of 

 the existing plants and animals from their predecessors — that is a subject 

 which is full of fascination. No naturalist can deny its attractions. In 

 fact, all theories that seem to promise the view of a great unity have a 

 very fascinating aspect. But when a botanist recovers from this feeling, and 

 endeavours to trace the pedigree of plants, he sees that the conclusions arrived 

 at are quite untenable. The same thing has been shown in relation to zoology 

 by Mr. Hassell, in a paper read here two or three years ago, in which the 

 attempt to prove the line of descent for the animal series is shown to be 

 utterly impossible of demonstration. As with the animal so with the 

 vegetable kingdom. If all the existing plants were derived from their 

 predecessors, in time we ought to be able to arrange them in a strictly 

 linear series ; but, it is very soon found that this is utterly impossible, as 

 well in regard to plants as to animals. With respect to plants, we should 



