266 



KEV. PEOF. G. HENSLOW^ M.A., P.L.S., 



it would puzzle them to point to a theological battlefield exhibit- 

 ing more uncertainty, obscurity, dissension, assumption, and fallacy 

 than their own. For the plain truth is that, though some agree in 

 this and that, there is not a single point in which all agree. 

 Battling for evolution they have torn it to pieces ; nothing is left 

 — nothing at all, on their showing, save a few fragments strewn 

 about the arena." 



Therefore, sir, I, for one, hope I may be allowed to say emphatically 

 that I do not believe in the theory of the evolution of man — partly 

 on account of what I have already said, but also because (although 

 I am aware that our evolutionist friends deny it) it is in my 

 judgment so entirely opposed to the inspired record given to us in 

 the Word of God as to the origin of man, viz., that " God created 

 man in His Own Image, in the Image of God created He him ; male and 

 female created He them" Genesis i, 27. 



Professor Langhorne Orchard wrote : 



The chief merits of the paper are (in my judgment) its successful 

 exposure of the fallacy of Darwinism and its insistence upon the 

 directive character of " that mysterious something " called " Life,^' 

 Life itself, and, therefore, also its directivity, are doubtless attri- 

 butable to spiritual action. As we are reminded (on p. 249), our 

 gratitude is due to the inventor of this useful word " Directivity " — 

 a word which has come to stay, and is likely to soon take its place in 

 dictionaries, a word which is welcomed by many scientists besides 

 Bergson as standing for the true explanation of natural facts. 



The author, like evolutionists generally, occasionally permits 

 himself to make assumptions more bold than accurate. On p. 248 

 he says, " I assume that everyone here present is a believer in 

 evolution." A reference to our Transactions may show him that he 

 has made a mistake. 



The arguments brought forward in support of evolution seem 

 very feeble. On p. 249 occurs the startling announcement that 

 " spontaneous adaptability to changed conditions of life " is the 

 origin of species. If we look for some proof of this, we read (p. 252) 

 that an inland plant grown near the sea may become fleshy, and a 

 seaside plant grown inland may become thin-leaved; and it is 

 seriously said that the changes may be sufficient to warrant the 

 plant being called a new species. But if, with Buffon, we define a 

 species as a constant succession of individuals similar to, and 



