278 



been used as to the necessity of doing justice to those whom vre feel bound to 

 oppose, I am sure that of aE, clerical men ought to be the first to do so ; 

 but I am convinced that in continually throwing the Bible at the heads of 

 infidels, as it has been phrased, you do not do this. I am certain, however, 

 that on purely scientific grounds any one, looking at the position in which 

 the Bible stands in relation to human history, cannot but feel that, as a man 

 of science, he ought to pause long before knocking his head against that 

 wall ; but when he has done so and been brought up. I would then meet 

 him entirely on scientific grouuds, and say, " Is the fact so and so, and is 

 this or that inference logical or not ? " I believe there is much in the 

 arguments that appear to prove that Darwinism has not made good its pro- 

 positions, and that in many of its inferences is has been very wild- (Hear, 

 hear.) 



Dr. J. A.. Fraser. — I wish to ask whether injustice has not been done, 

 probably unintentionally, to another person besides the one already men- 

 tioned. I allude to what appears in section 19 of the paper, to the efi"ect 

 that " it has been suggested by a man of great eminence as a physicist, 

 that vegetable life may have l>een evolved in another planet, and have been 

 thrown on to our earth when such planet broke up, by means of a meteoric 

 stone." Xow, has it not been repeatedly stated, not perhaps by the author 

 of the theory himself, but by others for him, that this was iatended more 

 as a joke than anything else ? I believe it is generally so regarded, even if 

 it has not been specifically stated by the author. 



Eev. C. A. Eow. — Dr. Irons has already forestalled the remarks I had in- 

 tended to have made, and I can only say that I most cordially assent to his 

 observations. I think that there is a defect in the beginning of this 

 paper, — it seems to make Darwinism stand for a great number of 

 opbiions entertained by various individuals, instead of the opinions of 

 Darwin himself. The author of the paper teUs us this, and it has 

 produced in my miricl considerable confusion. I may illustrate the unde- 

 sirableness of putting the subject in this light, by saying that if we were 

 to speak of the opinions of Socrates as Socraticism, it would be very 

 undesirable to include under that tenn the opioions of Plato and Aristotle, 

 as well as of the new and old Academies, and of the Cynics and the Stoics. 

 To do this would only lead to endless confusion of thought ; and it appears 

 to me that this paper ought to distinguish between the principles of evolu- 

 tion as held by atheists, those held by Darwin, ^nd those entertained by men 

 who believe in Revelation. It is a most undesirable proceeding to lay down 

 the proportion, that a b«ehef in the Darwinian theory is inconsistent with 

 belief in an intelligent Creator. We have already quite enough enemies to 

 oppose, without adding needless ones. I think that in dealing with infidels 

 we ought to follow as closely as we can what is said respecting our Divine 

 Master — "A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax He shall 

 not quench." I have been informed that Darwin holds a belief in theism. 

 "When we consider that there are such a vast number of opponents of revela- 

 tion, it seems to me in the highest degree unadvisable to represent that 



