756 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



says that even among his own countrymen are to be found many 

 doubters. It is scarcely worth mentioning that this book was 

 written twenty-one years ago, only nine years after the appear- 

 ance of the " Origin of Species/' for it is one of Prof. Shedd's first 

 principles that a proof -text is a proof -text, no matter where you 

 find it. Besides, it is exposition, not comment, that we are at just 

 now. 



" If the doctrine be true, it should be supported like that of 

 gravitation by a multitude of undisputed facts and phenomena." 

 The implication is that it is not so supported, and that is pretty 

 tough on the libraries full of books like Miiller's " Facts for Dar- 

 win." Prof. Shedd takes it very unkindly of Darwin that he never 

 exactly defined a species. Considering that that is one of the 

 things that Darwin said he was perfectly unable to do, and that 

 this very fact led him to believe that there was something mighty 

 queer about species anyhow, it does seem rather hard to bring it 

 up against him now. " Evolution," adds the professor, " conflicts 

 with the certainty of natural science." If it is true, it is the intro- 

 duction of chance into nature. Anything may happen from any- 

 thing. This is clear, for the evolutionists themselves say that 

 "variations are accidental." Poor Darwin! after all his pains 

 and endless iteration, there it goes — " accidental." One of the most 

 tiresome things in his books is his constant crying out, " Now, 

 mind you, when I say accidental, I mean according to laws that 

 are not yet discovered." But, after all, here is an order of mind 

 for which he ought to have said it twice as many times. 



The embryological argument for evolution attains the high 

 honor of being admitted to be " plausible " ; but it is immediately 

 and severely added that this is just the place to apply the maxim, 

 " Judge not by the outward appearance." Naturally, Prof. Shedd 

 is strong on design : " The abundant proof of design in nature 

 overthrows the theory of evolution. This design is executed even 

 in an extreme manner. The mammse on man's breast and the 

 web-feet of the upland goose show that the plan of structure is 

 carried out with persistence even when in particular circum- 

 stances there is no use for the organ itself." If that is hyper- 

 borean science, it is dangerously near Hibernian logic, and ought 

 to be called the argument from the usefulness of useless things. 



But it is really impossible to keep up the pretense of taking 

 Prof. Shedd's arguments against evolution seriously. Even one 

 who has read in the subject as little as the writer has can not but 

 see that this theologian, in attempting to refute the arguments of 

 the evolutionists, does not know what those arguments are. Take 

 one sentence of his : " If evolution be true, man may evolve into 

 ape as well as ape into man." It would not be possible to con- 

 struct a single sentence containing a more complete misapprehen- 



