764 HUXLEY AND HIS WORK. 



tliat they have come into prominence through selection by man rather 

 than by nature! Interbreeding is no criterion. 



But it is unnecessary to go into details, and these hints are offered 

 only because their bearings on the subject were so generally over- 

 looked by those who opposed evolution. One opponent, so eminent as 

 to be styled the "pope" of a great Protestant Church, published a 

 work against evolution largely based on the contention that the exist- 

 ence of the eye, except through direct creation, was inconceivable. 

 Yet this very evolution of the eye from simple protoplasm could have 

 been witnessed at any time with little trouble in the hen's egg. Is 

 evolution through great reaches of time more inconceivable than 

 actual evolution capable of daily observation 1 ? 



Well and skillfully did Huxley meet the arguments against evolu- 

 tion. Even most of the old naturalists sooner or later recognized the 

 force of the arguments for and the weakness of those against evolu- 

 tion. Those who did not in time gave up the contest with their lives. 

 The young who later entered into the field of investigation have done 

 so as evolutionists. 



It is interesting to recall that the illustrious American (Professor 

 Dana) who recently departed so full of years and honors, and of whom 

 you have heard from a former speaker (Major Powell) to-night at 

 length, in the full maturity of his intellect, accepted unconditionally 

 the doctrine of evolution and dexterously applied it in his last great 

 work. 



III. 



Darwin, in his Origin of Species, had refrained from direct allusion 

 to man in connection with evolution and many casual readers were 

 doubtless left in uncertainty as to his ideas on the subject. Naturally, 

 the scientific man recognized that the origin of his kind from a pri- 

 mate stock followed, and believed that Darwin's reticence was prob- 

 ably due to a desire to disturb popular beliefs as little as possible. 

 When we recall what strange views were held respecting man's origin 

 and relations we can understand how the unlearned could easily fail to 

 recognize that man must follow in the chain of his fellow- creatures. 

 (We preserve creature still as a reminiscence of ancient belief, but 

 without the primitive conception attached to the word.) 



Man was claimed as a being isolated from animals generally, and 

 naturalists of acknowledged reputation and one or two of great fame 

 more or less completely differentiated him from the rest of the animal 

 kingdom and even from the animal kingdom itself. 



As long as the isolation of man from the animal kingdom, or from 

 the greater part, was based on metaphysical or psychological ideas, 

 the naturalist perhaps had no cause of quarrel, although he might 

 wonder why a morphologist should stray so far from the field of obser- 

 vation. But when naturalists confused morphological and psycholog- 



