72 HOMO V. DARWIN. 



that " man is subject to much variability," and that " no 

 two individuals of the same race are quite alike." 



Darwin. " On any other view," my Lord, " than their 

 descent from a common progenitor, together with their 

 subsequent adaptation to diversified conditions, the simi- 

 larity of pattern between the hand of a man or monkey, 

 the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat, 

 &c., is utterly inexplicable. It is no scientific explanation 

 to assert that they have all been formed on the same ideal 

 plan." (Vol. i. pp. 31, 32.) 



Homo. Allow me, my Lord, to reply to Mr. Darwin here, 

 in the language of his reviewer in The Times. When Mr. 

 Darwin says, " It is no scientific explanation to assert that 

 they have all been formed on the same ideal plan," " he is 

 simply begging the question. If Mr. Darwin starts with 

 the preliminary assumption that every fact in nature is 

 capable of scientific explanation — in other words, that no 

 causes have ever operated except natural causes, he will, of 

 course, reject any other causes. But this assumption is the 

 very thing to be proved. To argue from it is to assume 

 the whole doctrine of evolution. The assertion in question 

 is scientific or not, according as it is true or not. The only 

 scientific question is whether, as a matter of fact, species 

 have been developed, by force of circumstances, out of other 

 species, and man out of an ape. It is certainly unscientific 

 argument to assume that they must have been so developed. 

 Does the investigation of the various forms of Nature lead 

 us up to a number of distinct points of departure ? This 

 is the question at issue. Mr. Darwin, unless he believes 

 the world to be eternal, must admit a single point of de- 

 parture, and there is nothing more essentially unscientific 

 in the recognition of a dozen co-ordinate points of departure 

 than in the recognition of one." 



