therefore a natural consequence, he gratuitously enters a 

 flat denial of this inference. 



Every intelligent observer must conclude with absolute 

 certainty from this confession of a Darwinian, that Dar- 

 winism is, in fact, not a scientific but a philosophic theory 

 of nature. 



But let us proceed to a consideration of the other 

 reasons which Wagner suggests as an explanation of the 

 letrogression of Darwinism. He states as a first reason, 

 that scientific research since Darwin "has amassed such an 

 abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the prin- 

 ciple of Descent, that this doctrine has been able, even for 

 some time past, to maintain an independent position and 

 to draw proofs of its truth immediately from nature itself, 

 without the intervention of Darwinism." * * * "From 

 which it follows as a matter of course, that the question, 

 whether the manner indicated by Darwin for the origin of 

 species is the correct one, has decreased by no means in- 

 considerably in significance, inasmuch as Darwin's theory 

 could now, if it were necessary, be abandoned with less 

 concern than formerly because it could be relinquished 

 without detriment to the doctrine of Descent." 



It is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a 

 fact of such importance so superficially. With naive un- 

 concern there appears on the face of it the acknowledge- 

 men that Darwinism has really not been based on actual 

 observation but has been enunciated for the sake of the 

 doctrine of Descent. Come what may, this must be vindi- 



94 



