1 26 Recent Literature. [February, 



of evolution applies to organic life. He sees his way clearly for 

 the continued development of life from the simplest protoplasmic 

 protozoan upward to the complex bodily and mental organization 

 of the higher mammals and of man himself. He traces with due 

 precision the differentiation of a nervous system, and the gradual 

 growth therefrom of the powers to which we give the names of 

 consciousness, mind, and intelligence— the latter of which is but 

 the result of consciousness. He perceives, in concert with most 

 American naturalists, the insufficiency of Darwin's theory of 

 "natural selection" to account for lightest varia- 



tion, though he admits, with some hesitation and occasional con- 

 tradiction of himself, its efficiency to preserve a beneficial variation 

 when it has once arisen. To refute Darwin he gleans facts and 

 theories from Cope, Mivart, Wallace, and other naturalists, accepts 

 also the aid of the physicists who >\c\\y the possibility of the 

 countless millions of years required by the "natural selection" 

 theory ; and succeeds in fortifying himself in a position from which 

 it would be difficult indeed for a pure Darwinian to dislodge him. 

 But he dismisses in few words Spencer's masterly theory of the in- 

 fluence of the total environment upon an organism, and scarcely 

 notices Cope and Hyatt's proofs of the ease with which new 

 genera can be produced by an acceleration or retardation of the 

 embryological stages of life. 



Having thrown doubt upon Darwin, he is in a hurry to assert 

 that all evolution is the result of a " Formative Intelligence" orig- 

 inally impressed upon organic existence from a source outside 

 of them. 



He does not admit the possibility of the evolution of the lowest 

 protoplasmic life from inorganic matter ; and still less can he con- 

 ceive of the evolution from simple matter of the molecules of the 

 so-called elements of the chemist. Upon such subjects as the 

 origin of life the only safe position is that of the agnostic ; we do 

 not "know," we have no "positive proof," similar to that which 

 tells us of our own existence, or informs us of the existence of 

 tangible objects. But the agnostic may have his opinion, his 

 belief, comparable to the beliefs and creeds of the religions and 

 sects, and like them, incapable of "positive proof." But while 

 the belief of the creeds is based upon a book or upon traditions, 

 the opinions of the agnostic, held by him loosely and susceptible 

 of modification in the face of new discoveries, are always in har- 

 mony with the facts of which we have "positive proof," and do 

 but form their logical continuation. 



Such a statement as that on page 41 of Mr. Murphy's book — 

 "the notion of any finite thing existing without having been 

 created is more inconceivable — it is absurd," proves nothing 

 and disproves nothing. We admit that it is inconceivable, it is 

 " too high, we cannot attain unto it," yet it is simpler than the 

 belief in a Creator who breathed , s of matter 



