Darwinism 2 7 



and we know none ever occurs as a phenomenon in 

 nature, from the standpoint of science we are bound 

 to conclude, and entitled to say : " We cannot accept 

 a hypothesis which is a mere inference and is devoid of 

 support from the observed phenomena of nature." 



In regard to the different types of men upon the 

 earth, we, as Huxley says, have every right to assume 

 their descent from a single pair, and the modification 

 of different types through the force of environment. 

 Further, we make bold to state from the study of 

 observed phenomena that man remains " man," but he 

 differs in appearance and in mental and moral char- 

 acteristics, according to his environment. Once he has 

 acquired the necessary qualities suitable to the climate 

 and special features of the country he is living in, he 

 remains the same physically from age to age. 



The most recent pronouncement on this question is 

 that of Professor Keith at the annual meeting of the 

 British Association. He said : " The problem of 

 man's antiquity is not yet solved. The picture I wish 

 to leave in your minds is that in the distant past there 

 was not one kind but a number of very different kinds 

 of men in existence, all of which have become extinct, 

 except that branch which has given origin to modern 

 man." He makes this " scientific " statement on the 

 evidence of two forms — the Heidelberg man and the 

 small-brained man of Java, the size of whose brain is 

 said to be one half of that of a well-developed modern 

 man. This description would not be very exaggerated 

 in regard to that of many types of African negroes — 

 the pigmies and bushmen, for instance. We think most 

 thinking men will agree that again Professor Keith 

 draws unwarrantable conclusions from insufficient 

 data. In fact there is no support for his statement 

 whatever. He can adduce no evidence to prove that 

 men of a different type existed then than do now, or 



