THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION. 110 



for it in a realm of order, in which cause and effect were linked 

 together in indissoluble correlation. Similarly " variation " was a 

 word used to suggest an effect which somehow or other had come 

 into existence without any adequate cause. But such an effect could 

 not be. Consequently there was no such thing as "variation." 

 Hitting the bull's-eye was one thing in respect of which "variation," 

 or tailing to hit the bull's-eye, was a word which, if it had any 

 meaning at all, simply meant hitting the target in any one of any 

 number of contradictory directions. 



Professor H. Langhorne Orchard : We are indebted to the 

 author for a most interesting presentation of the present position of 

 the theory of Organic Evolution. But there is an aspect of the case 

 that I should like to urge : we must distinguish between what is 

 proven and what is only hypothesis. If appeal is made to a 

 vivid imagination, a sketch, more or less ingenious, may be drawn 

 of a conceivable evolutionary process. Yet the utmost achievement 

 of that sort of advocacy is to show that, if there be no fact contrary, 

 the thing might conceivably have so taken place. But science 

 should not regard such a doubtful possibility as an actuality. 



The Chairman said : I should like to say that, although the 

 existence of a God and of a Creator may be compatible with the 

 acceptance of " Darwinism," I am absolutely convinced in my own 

 mind that the acceptance of what Darwin teaches as to progressive 

 evolution would absolutely compel us to have the Bible written over 

 again. (Several members dissented.) This is my opinion, and I 

 have spent forty years or more in close observation of plant life, and 

 if the progressive development of higher forms from lower forms 

 could be demonstrated as the method or means whereby organic 

 forms of nature have attained their present condition it would, I 

 believe, sooner or later bring everyone of us here to the realization of 

 the fact that this is not what the Bible was intended to say, or does say. • 



May I mention that some of the speakers, especially the first 

 speaker, seemed to imply that scientific seekers after truth are 

 consciously opposing God's Eevelation, and almost seeking to under- 

 mine it. I have the greatest sympathy with the man who 

 endeavours to follow the teachings of Pure Science : he is only 

 seeking after Truth, and true science cannot be opposed to God's 

 Truth. Such men as Professor Bateson, the "apostle of Mendelism," 

 Dr. Keeble and others, are absolutely as sincere and honest as 



