1 y 2 LIFE OF PROFESSOR HUXLEY chap, x 



If he had consulted me I should have given him that advice 

 myself, for his own sake. And whoever advised him, in that 

 sense, in my opinion did wisely. 



But the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that 

 as they have creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so 

 have the men of science. There is no more ridiculous delusion. 

 We, at any rate, hold ourselves morally bound to " try all things 

 and hold fast to that which is good " ; and among public bene- 

 factors, we reckon him who explodes old error, as next in rank 

 to him who discovers new truth. 



You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter. 



Two letters on kindred subjects may appropriately fol- 

 low in this place. Thanking M. Henri Gadeau de Kerville 

 for his " Causeries sur le Transformisme," he writes 

 (Feb. i) :— 



Dear Sir — Accept my best thanks for your interesting 

 " causeries," which seem to me to give a very clear view of the 

 present state of the evolution doctrine as applied to biology. 



There is a statement on p. 87 "Apres sa mort Lamarck fut 

 completement oublie," which may be true for France but cer- 

 tainly is not so for England. From 1830 onwards for more than 

 forty years Lyell's " Principles of Geology " was one of the most 

 widely read scientific books in this country, and it contains an 

 elaborate criticism of Lamarck's views. Moreover, they were 

 largely debated during the controversies which arose out of the 

 publication of the "Vestiges of Creation" in 1844 or thereabouts. 

 We are certainly not guilty of any neglect of Lamarck on this 

 side of the Channel. 



If I may make another criticism it is that, to my mind, 

 atheism is, on purely philosophical grounds, untenable. That 

 there is no evidence of the existence of such a being as the God 

 of the theologians is true enough ; but strictly scientific reason- 

 ing can take us no further. Where we know nothing we can 

 neither affirm nor deny with propriety. 



The other is in answer to the Bishop of Ripon, enclosing 

 a few lines on the principal representatives of modern sci- 

 ence, which he had asked for. 



4 Marlborough Place, June 16, 1887. 

 My dear Bishop of Ripon — I shall be very glad if I can be 

 of any use to you now and always. But it is not an easy task to 



