62 MIRACLE, LAW, EVOLUTION. 
new. Such abrupt changes seem most in harmony with 
the teachings of the miracles. In these the thing to be 
done was done not imperceptibly, but at once. 
So far as I can read the record of geology, its evidence 
also isin favor of abrupt changes. The links in the 
pedigree of the horse are well defined ; there is not an 
imperceptible, long-continued transition from genus to 
genus. ‘There was the Orohippus, and, after a time, sud- 
denly the Mesohippus appears ; again, there was genera- 
tion after generation of the Mesohippus, and then, all at 
once, is found the Pliohippus, and so on. 
In spite of an original and very strong bias the other 
way, biologists now admit the occurrence of sudden 
starts upward, jumps in the progress of development. 
Prof. Huxley, in his ‘‘ Lay Sermons,”’ page 297, says: 
‘‘ We believe that nature does make jumps now and 
then.’”’ May we not ask: Is there conclusive proof she 
ever does otherwise? He adds: ‘‘Mr. Darwin embar- 
rassed himself with the aphorism which turns up so 
often in his pages, ‘ Natura non facit saltum.’’’ 
Prof. Cope, ‘‘ Origin of the Fittest,’ page 123, says : 
‘The results of such successional (embryonic) metamor- 
phoses are expressed in geological history by more or 
less abrupt transitions, rather than by uniformly gradual 
successions.’’ It is difficult to avoid the belief that, but 
for theoretical reasons, biologists, in reference to new 
species, would almost adopt the motto, Natura semper 
facit saltum. Be this as it may, evolution gives us no 
aid in accounting for the changes. The survival of the 
fittest, however important in determining what varieties 
shall survive, gives no assistance in determining how and. 
why the variations occurred. As Prof. Huxley well says: 
‘‘ What the hypothesis of evolution wants is a good the- 
ory of variation.”’ At present it can be attributed to 
nothing more definite than ‘‘some cause unknown to 
12 
