1880. ] The Critics of Evolution. 327 
perfectly explained, and indeed in the simplest and clearest way, 
by Darwin's ‘ Theory of Inheritance and Adaptation.’ 
These remarks could be greatly extended, with vivid demon- 
stration, but I must content myself with referring to an admirable 
popular work by William D. Gunning, entitled “ Life History of 
our Planet,’ where one may learn that the human body is a 
“library of anatomical history.” Finally, I adduce the testimony 
of Dr. McCosh, an unimpeachable witness, who asserts that, “the 
doctrine of development does not undermine nor in any way 
interfere with the argument from design.” 
Dissent of Agassiz—Much stress has been placed upon the 
dissent of Agassiz and Dawson from the views of the evolutionists, 
and they are quoted as veterans who of course we are bound to 
regard as speaking ex cathedra, and therefore not to be gainsayed. 
“ Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? was 
asked of old,” and some critics ask the same question and forget 
that it is recorded of Christ, “ For neither did his brethren be- 
lieve in him.” What to the seeker for truth does it matter now 
or did it matter then, who believed or now believes? The vota- 
ries of science are not swayed by authorities but by truth. Their . 
motto should ever be, “ Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.” 
The opinions of aged men, unless they have kept themselves 
abreast of the thought of the day, are frequently unwise, and are 
seldom regarded by those who prefer to seek truth for its own 
sake regardless of the reflections of Mrs. Grundy. “By the 
time,” I have heard a most eminent man of science observe, 
“by the time a man of science attains eminence on any sub- 
ject he becomes a nuisance upon it, because,” if advanced in 
age, “he is sure to retain errors which were in vogue in his youth, 
but which the new race has refuted. These are the sort of ideas 
that find their home in Academies, and out of their dignified win- 
dows pooh-pooh new things.” (Bagehot’s Physics and Politics, 
p. 60.) 
Science enjoys perpetual youth. Her votaries grow old and 
pass away, and their opinions with them, unless founded on eter- 
nal principles. “ Her goal to-day is her starting point to-mor- 
row.” It is an historical fact that no physician over forty years 
of age at the time of the discovery of the circulation of the blood 
1“ Is the Development Hypothesis Sufficient,” by Dr. James McCosh, President of 
Princeton College, Published in the Popular Science Monthly, Vol. x, p. 96. 
