162 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
to the special, from the low to the high, from the 
simple to the complex. 
Now, the importance of these large and general 
facts in the present connexion must be at once 
apparent; but it may perhaps be rendered more so if 
we try to imagine how the case would have stood 
supposing geological investigation to have yielded in 
this matter an opposite result, or even so much as an 
equivocal result. If it had yielded an opposite result, 
if the lower geological formations were found to 
contain as many, as diverse, and as highly organized 
types as the later geological formations, clearly there 
would have been no room at all for any theory of pro- 
gressive evolution. And, by parity of reasoning, in 
whatever degree such a state of matters were found to 
prevail, in that degree would the theory in question 
have been discredited. But seeing that these opposite 
principles do not prevail in any (relatively speaking) 
considerable degree 1, we have so far positive testimony 
of the largest and most massive character in favour of 
this theory. For while all these large and general 
facts are very much what they ought to be according 
to this theory, they cannot be held to lend any 
support at all to the rival theory. In other words, it 
is clearly no essential part of the theory of special 
creation that species should everywhere exhibit this 
gradual multiplication as to number, coupled with a 
gradual diversification and gencral elevation of types, 
in all the growing branches of the tree of life. No 
one could adopt seriously the jocular lines of Burns, 
to the effect that the Creator required to practise his 
1 For objections which may be brought against this and similar 
statements, see the Appendix. 
