3o8 



SCIENCE. 



way. Such phencmera, it is said, show unity of plan, 

 and favor tre hypothesis of ihe descent of jelly-fishes 

 from sporges, ard of man from apes. No dcubt they do 

 if themir.d is already prepared to receive such ideas, 

 These, however, who really study the operations of na- ' 

 ture in her inner recesses where ard while she is at work, 

 will certainly often find where identity is affirmed, diver- 

 sity really exists. Rough general resemblances can no 

 doubt be pointed out, and be made much of, by those 

 who do not lock too closely or intently ; but those who 

 examine minutely and patiently will find that in very 

 many cases the general resemblances will be outnum- 

 bered and outweighed by specific irreconcilable differ- 

 ences and individual peculiarities. 



If then we examine living matter in lhat early period 

 of development ere any structural peculiariiies whatever 

 have been manifested, we shall be face to face with the 

 problem of life. For it is at this time, when the matter 

 is without form, that the dispositions of the material 

 particles, which at length result in the development of 

 form, are made. Preparation is made for the division of 

 the mass of the living matter into several portions, and 

 for the orderly disposition of these in respect to cne 

 another, a« well as in respect of the new masses which 

 at some future time are to be detached from them. 

 Throughout the whole period of the life of many organ- 

 isms, similar wonderful changes are continually taking 

 place, at least as respects the living matter of certain | 

 parts and organs ; but we have no means of distinguish- 

 ing the living matter which continues monotonously re- 

 peating similar changes, from, living matter which divides 

 and subdivides into masses, which in turn gives rise to i 

 successive generations of living particles, which may 

 differ from one another and from all that have gone be- 

 fore, in fower. 



As far as I am aware, no form of the doctrine of evolu- 

 tion yet enunciated takes into account the phenomena of 

 the living matter in which and by which all the changes 

 recognized and professed to be explained are carried on. j 

 And vet it is only by these actions in living matter that 

 evolution can be made to appear a plausible hypothesis, j 

 Only by carrying out very careful investigations on this 

 formless, structureless living matter can we reasonably ' 

 hope to obtain anything approaching an accurate con- 

 ception of the wonderful working of real living nature. It 

 seems to me that the " nature " of the evolutionist is but j 

 a fanciful and highly colored picture in which ideas sug- 

 gested by investigations in stockyards and shambles are : 

 depicted, with the addition of the horrible scenes assumed 

 by a vivid imagination to be enacted in the supposed ever- 

 lasting right for existence and scramble for mastery, in 

 which conquerors are always being conquered by creatures 

 just a shade more fitted to survive than themselves. Here 1 

 is creation by destruction in a never-ceasing scramble go- j 

 ing on for millions on millions of years, in which the only 

 thing certain seems to be that the greatest misery is as- 

 sured to the greatest number; life succeeding life, without ' 

 good or reason or joy or hope ; peaceful nature a continual 

 massacre of experimental forms to be massacred in their 

 turn, and these by more ; a constant struggle to survive, I 

 in which success is rewarded by extermination. The 

 " nature " of evolutionists is a very strange nature indeed, 

 in which oppression, destruction, and tyranny seem to be | 

 the chief agents in creation and formation, development 

 and advancement. 



But besides the evolution of living forms and of the dif- 

 ferent organs, we are to believe in an evolution of matter, 

 an evolution of worlds, of suns, of systems. Rel gion, 

 law, and justice, art, science, and even thought are all pro- 

 ducts of this universal, never-ending evolution. But what 

 is evolution, and who has given to the term an accurate 

 definition ? We shall be told there is evolution and evolu- 

 tion. One man's evolution goes too far, another's not far 

 enough, and there is no general agreement as to what is 1 

 meant by evolution, and whether the use of the term | 



should be restricted to the living world or extended to the 

 universe — though it must be obvious to any one who con- 

 siders the question that the evolution of a living form and 

 the evolution of the matter of a stone are as far removed 

 from one another as are the question of the nature and 

 scope of Infinite Power and the nature and properties of 

 a gas or a metal. 



Herbert Spencer has defined his " evolution " to be a 

 change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a de- 

 finite coherent heterogeneity, through differentiations and 

 integrations. But is not every one of these polysyllabic 

 words as elastic as the word the meaning of which they 

 are to explain ? Every assertion made is wanting in proof, 

 and most of the words may be used in totally different 

 and even in opposite senses. 



Any one who ventures to express a doubt concerning 

 the absolute correctness of the assemblage of vague and 

 even contradictory conjectures comprised in any hypothe- 

 sis of evolution, is in danger of being abused and called 

 names. He may be denounced to the world as a con- 

 temptible person who has made a vile and abusive attack 

 upon some infallible authority who affirms himself to be 

 the real discoverer of all the secrets of all the molecular 

 machinery of creation. We now live under the most 

 ridiculous of all forms of despotism. It has been said 

 that we must accept such and such views or be debarred 

 from accepting anything! But is it possible for any un- 

 biassed person to accept implicitly doubts, vague sugges- 

 tions of what may be, or can be, or might be — specula- 

 tions, hypotheses, conjectures concerning things that lived 

 under conditions which are in great part only conjectural? 

 Probably no living person accepts as it stands 'The Origin 

 of Species,' and it is doubtful whether the first chapter, or 

 even the first sentence of the first chapter, would hold its 

 ground without considerable alteration and qualification 

 if subject to searching critical examination. 



The facts known to microscopical observers in connec- 

 tion with the act of living of the smallest particle of the 

 simplest forms of living matter are no more to be accounted 

 for by any of the extravagant crotchets lately advanced as 

 explanations of the facts, than are the general broad phen- 

 omena of nature which are under the observation of all. 

 Evolution is a wholly satisfactory explanation only to 

 those whose minds have been trained to submission to 

 evolutional authority, and who have brought themselves 

 to regard things as they have been told they ought to re- 

 gard them, instead of venturing to use their senses, and 

 reasoningt on the facts presented to their observation — 

 and indeed see for themselves with their own eyes instead 

 of accepting, without ever seeing, what they are told has 

 been seen by eyes which are supposed to be specially 

 pi ivileged to see. 



As evidence of the nensense often advanced in favor 

 of some form of evolution, let me quote a few sentences 

 from an article on "Butterfly Psychology," published in 

 the St. James's Gazette. Like most advocates of evolu- 

 tion, the writer has the knack of telling his story in such 

 a pleasant way as to make people imagine that he is ex- 

 plaining the nature and cause of things he describes, 

 while in truth he is doing nothing of the kind. He ex- 

 plains nothing at all, but merely announces astounding 

 assumptious based upon conjectures of his own, or of 

 others. 



" In early life the future butterfly emerges from the egg 

 as a caterpillar. At once his many legs begin to move, 

 and the caterpillar moves forward by their motion. But 

 the mechanism which set them moving was the nervous 

 system, with its ganglia working the separate legs of each 

 segment. This movement is probably quite as automa- 

 tic as the act of sucking in the new-born infant. The 

 caterpillar walks, it knows not why, but simply because 

 it has to walk. When it reaches a fit place for feeding, 

 which differs according to the nature of the particular 

 larva, it feeds automatically. Certain special external 

 stimulants of sight, smell, or touch set up the appropri- 



