406 The Critics of Evolution. [ June, 
hoof, instead of the usual pair., The speaker stated that the toes 
of the hinder feet were united throughout, and were so far devel- 
oped beyond the usual point attained by the ordinary ruminant. 
The toes of the fore limb were different, only one being continued 
to the hoof, all the others being rudimental.’ The bones belonged 
to the modern deer and were not found fossilized. 
But suppose the case rested on the evolution of the horse 
alone? When Newton demonstrated the law of gravitation from 
atoms to apples and falling towers, what did he do? He asserted 
universal gravitation! Men came to him with objections and 
difficulties, some trivial and some serious. He answered some- 
what in this wise. “Gentlemen, some of your arguments are 
trivial, I would not answer them if I could; some are serious, 
just zow I could not answer them if I would; nevertheless gravi- 
tation zs and it is universal” All the objections to evolution may 
not be answerable at present, nevertheless the philosopher is jus- 
tified in asserting that evolution zs and that it zs universal. 
Evolution a Grand Generalization.—Some doubting critics 
esteems us “far too much inclined to accept as ‘grand generali- 
zation’ a bold and unproved theory and a theory which is hostile 
in its influences to the reception of the simple truths recorded for 
our profit in the Bible.” What these simple truths may be they 
have not stated, and perhaps it were better they should refrain 
from the statement. I know of no more happy mode of turning 
the truths of evolution against the Bible, than that pursued by 
some perverse theologians of boldly asserting that they are 
antagonistic to the Scriptures. The truths of science, as we have 
seen in former discussions respecting geology, were regarded as 
antagonistic to the Bible, and anti-scientists were forced to admit 
the Bible in error or resort to the only avenue of escape, by con- 
sidering it wrongly translated or improperly understood. Would 
it not be wise to admit this may again be the case, rather than 
provoke opposition and the damaging criticisin of evolutionary 
science ? 
As respects the epithet “ grand generalization,” and the unproved 
character of the evolution doctrine, I have something more to 
say. Our critics have evidently not made themselves familiar 
with the profound philosophy of Herbert Spencer, who has based 
his wonderful works upon evolution, and is drawing therefrom his 
great system of scientific thought, the most original and most 
