The Zoologist— June, 1871. 2615 



the book of Genesis (i. 27) must be untrue. Now this ape-descent 

 of man is not only asserted in the passages I have quoted, but is 

 assumed as proven in dozens of passages scattered throughout the 

 volumes before me ; for instance — " It is probable that the early 

 ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social" (vol. i. p. 85) : 

 again, " the social instincts which must have been acquired by man 

 in a very rude state, and probably even by his early ape-like 

 progenitors, still give an impulse to many of his best actions" {id. 

 p. 86). 1 will not stop to notice an obvious objection to this senti- 

 ment, but pass on : " We may infer that when, at a remote epoch, 

 the progenitors of man were in a transitional stale, and were 

 changing from quadrupeds into bipeds" [id. p. 121): again, 

 " These several reversionary as well as strictly rudimentary 

 structures reveal the descent of man from some lower form in 

 an unmistakeable manner" (irf. p. 130): or again, "If then the 

 ape-like progenitors of man" {id. p. 1.36): again, "the ape-, 

 like progenitors of man" {id. p. 161); and so forth. Well, then, 

 if we grant that these passages assume the truth, then assuredly 

 there could have been no creation of a God-like man — a man "in 

 God's image"; there could have been no garden of Eden; no tree 

 of knowledge ; no forbidden fruit; no temptation; no transgres- 

 sion ; no expulsion; no need of a Saviour; no prophetic announce- 

 ments of the advent of that Saviour; no fulfilment of those 

 announcements; no reconciliation ; no salvation : the entire Scrip- 

 ture history of man's occupation of the earth, the entire scheme of 

 his redemption, the entire fabric of our faith, falls and crumbles 

 into dust if that one verse is false, and false it must be if man were 

 called into existence as the larva of an ascidian, or as some fish- 

 like animal, or as a hairy quadruped furnished with a tail and 

 pointed ears. 



It is obviously no part of my duty as a zoologist to teach 

 Theology, nor shall I attempt it ; but it seems to me that the 

 science of Zoology — certainly not the Bible — is endangered by 

 Mr. Darwin's teaching ; for every work that brings on Science the 

 contempt or disapproval of the wise and good, is an attack on 

 Science itself. Now Mr, Darwin has attempted to prove, by 

 appealing to a systematically arranged series of facts, taught him 

 by Science, — almost the whole of them indisputable, and all 

 adduced in evident sincerity, — that man was not created at all; 

 and in doing so he has availed himself of zoological science, 



