33 



9 



while dissenting from their conclusions. The line of argument 

 adopted in both was that of analogy, and the lecturer went on 

 to examine the examples of this adduced. In so doing, he re- 

 marked on the known facts of Cieation as it was presented to 

 our immediats experience, and denied that throughout it a single 

 instance could be produced of any individual departing from its 

 special place and rising into another. On the contrary, he 

 asserted that the law of segregation brought forward previously 

 was rigidly enforced, as in the case of the sterility of hybrids, 

 which might be looked on as a sort of penalty for any attempted 

 transgre sion of it. The case of the great variety in the family 

 of the columbidse, all said to be derived from one original, the 

 rock pigeon, which was so strongly insisted on by Mr. Darwin, 

 in reality gave no countenance to his theory, while it confirmed 

 the opposite one, inasmuch as all the varieties above referred to 

 remained pigeons still. The question under consideration was 

 reduced to a simple alternative, as Mr. Grove himself fully ad- 

 mitted and clearly stated. They had to choose between the 

 existence of species by means of an original Creation, or else by 

 means of development. Both Mr. Grove and Mr. Murphy, 

 along with Mr. Darwin, argued for the high amount of proba- 

 bility which existed that all living beings, vegetable and animal, 

 are descended possibly from one, certainly from a smaller number 

 of simply organised original germs. Mr. Macllwaine then 

 proceeded to examine at length the arguments adduced in 

 favour of this latter hypothesis, more especially the alleged 

 analogy insisted on by its advocates. He showed that Mr. 

 Grove had made a palpable mistake in demanding "ocular 

 demonstration" in the proof required for the Creation theory. 

 According to his own statements it was a matter of inference, 

 andin pursuing this the lecturer showed that Mr. Grove, and Mr. 

 Murphy also, left out of their consideration the only sufficient 

 testimony in the case — this was revelation, both the possi- 

 bility and necessity for which few could deny. Mr. Grove and 

 Mr. Murphy, as well as Darwin, repudiated the Atheistic theory 

 of spontaneous generations, and the origin of life by chemical 

 action, while they all admitted the act of Creation. If this had 

 taken place, a record of it was not only possible, but highly 



