31 
Now, I shall leave the reader to judge how much force (in the way , 
of defence against my criticism) there is in this paragraph from the 
“Reply,” all that remains of the three paragraphs after extracting the 
irrelevant matter. That argument was briefly this: “If a miracle, as 
contra-natural, has occurred, it contradicts the position of the theistic 
evolutionist, for he admits no miracle but that of creation out of noth- 
ing in the first instance, but that cannot be a miracle.” But “that 
argument,” as we have seen, is a non sequitur. Now, where is the 
proof in this “Reply,” or even attempted proof, that “that argument” 
is not a non sequitur? Nowhere, save only in the bare repetition of 
that argument, and that in a mutilated form; and just why, in his 
“Reply,” the argument was shorn of these words—viz.: “But, if it has 
occurred, it contradicts his theory’—is matter of curious speculation. 
Now, as to that argument we have seen, that even as contra-natural, 
miracle embraces “creation ex nihilo in the first instance,” and that ad- 
mitting that the miracles, e. g., of the New Testament, contradict the 
theistic evolutionist, that is one proposition, but that proposition does 
not disprove mine, viz.: That the Doctor's argument against theistic 
evolution is incoherent, for both these propositions may be true, for they 
are not mutual contradictories. The ‘“‘ Reply,” therefore, like the argu- 
ment which it professes to defend, is incoherent. 
One can scarcely restrain the surmise that the Professor does not know 
what “non sequitur” means. Because I do not believe in theistic evo- 
lution, therefore I must endorse every argument that the Doctor (or any 
body else) may urge against it. Or, because I expose the fallacy of the 
Doctor’s argument against theistic evolutionism, therefore I believe in 
that form of evolution. Because this exposure occurs in a pamphlet 
devoted to the defence (another of the Doctor’s fallacies) of Dr. Wood- 
row, therefore Dr. Woodrow must be a theistic evolutionist; of, at 
least, Dr. Martin does not know the difference between Dr. Woodrow 
and “the thorough-paced theistic evolutionist.’’ Such logic as this is 
surely too palpably puerile to require any severer castigation than this 
bare mention. If this had been the only occasion on which such falla- 
cies were practised by the opponents of Dr. Woodrow, there would be 
less to regret; on the contrary, however, it seems to be one of their 
stock performances. Dr. Woodrow’s name occurs nowhere in the 
Pamphlet—save only as a convenient antithesis on the title page. He 
was not consulted at allin the preparation of that first series of criticisms 
(or of this second series); no single quotation—save one, ‘‘evolution— 
descent with modification”’—was made from any of his writings, and 
