The Theory of Natural Selection. 277 
as I have said, curious to find some of them denouncing 
a wider definition of the principle of natural selection, 
merely because the narrower (or included) definition is 
invested with the charm of verbal associations}. 
So much for fallacies and misconceptions touch- 
ing Darwin’s theory, which are but too frequently 
met with in the writings of its supporters. We must 
now pass on to mention some of the still greater 
fallacies and misconceptions which are prevalent in 
the writings of its opponents. And, in order to do 
this thoroughly, I shall begin by devoting the re- 
mainder of the present chapter to a consideration of 
the antecedent standing of the two theories of natural 
selection and supernatural design. This having been 
done, in the succeeding chapters I shall deal with the 
evidences for, and the objections against, the former 
theory. 
Beginning, then, with the antecedent standing oi 
these alternative theories, the first thing to be noticed 
is, that they are both concerned with the same subject- 
matter, which it is their common object to explain. 
Moreover, this subject-matter is clearly and sharply 
divisible into two great classes of facts in organic 
nature—namely, those of Adaptation and those of 
Beauty. Darwin’s theory of descent explains the for- 
mer by his doctrine o1 natural selection, and the latter 
by his doctrine of sexual selection. In the first instance, 
therefore, I shall have to deal only with the facts of 
1 The question as to whether natural selection has been the only prin 
ciple concerned in the origination o. species, is quite distinct from that 
as to the accuracy of the above definition. 
