Grant Allen’s “‘Charles Darwin” 221 
The present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of the 
moral code in this respect is at the bottom of the supposed 
antagonism between religion and science. These two are 
not, or never ought to be, antagonistic. They should never 
want what is spoken of as reconciliation, for in reality they 
areone. Religion is the quintessence of science, and science 
the raw material of religion; when people talk about 
reconciling religion and science they do not mean what they 
say; they mean reconciling the statements made by one 
set of professional men with those made by another set 
whose interests lie in the opposite direction—and with 
no recognised president of the court to keep them within 
due bounds this is not always easy. 
Mr. Allen says :— 
“At the same time it must be steadily remembered 
that there are many naturalists at the present day, 
especially among those of the lower order of intelligence, 
who, while accepting evolutionism in a general way, and 
therefore always describing themselves as Darwinians, do 
not believe, and often cannot even understand, the distinc- 
tive Darwinian addition to the evolutionary doctrine— 
namely, the principle of natural selection. Such hazy and 
indistinct thinkers as these are still really at the prior 
stage of Lamarckian evolution ”’ (p. 199). 
Considering that Mr. Allen was at that stage himself 
so recently, he might deal more tenderly with others who 
still find ‘‘ the distinctive Darwinian adjunct ” “ unthink- 
able.” It is perhaps, however, because he remembers 
his difficulties that Mr. Allen goes on as follows :— 
“It is probable that in the future, while a formal accep- 
tance of Darwinism becomes general, the special theory of 
natural selection will be thoroughly understood and 
assimilated only by the more abstract and philosophical 
minds.” 
By the kind of people, in fact, who read the Spectator 
and are called thoughtful ; and in point of fact less than 
