tained in it may be removed." Professor Morgan, finally, 

 rejects Haeckel's boasted "Law of Biogenesis" as " in prin- 

 ciple, false." And he furthermore seems to imply that 

 Fleischmann merits the reproach of men of science, for 

 wasting his time in confuting "the antiquated and generally 

 exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel." 



"Antiquated and generally exaggerated views." Such 

 is the comment of science on Haeckel's boast that Dar- 

 win's pre-eminent service to science consisted in pointing 

 out how purposive adaptations may be produced by natural 

 selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they 

 may be produced by artificial selection and human design. 

 And yet the latest and least worthy production from the 

 pen of this Darwinian philosopher, The Riddle of the Uni- 

 verse, is being scattered broad-cast by the anti-Christian 

 press, in the name and guise of popular science. It 

 is therein that the evil consists. For the discerning 

 reader sees in the book itself, its own best refuta- 

 tion. The pretensions of Haeckel's "consistent and 

 monistic theory of the eternal cosmogenetic process" 

 are best met by pointing to the fact that its most highly 

 accredited and notoriotis representative has given to the 

 world in exposition and defense of pure Darwinian philos- 

 ophy, a work, which, for boldness of assertion, meagerness 

 of proof, inconsequence of argument, inconsistency in fun- 

 damental principles and disregard for facts which tell 

 against the author's theory, has certainly no equal in con- 

 temporary literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of 

 Professor Paulsen, the book "fairly drips with superficial- 



24 



