394 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
(Mr. Darwin) merely phrases “in different terms the same materialistic 
hypothesis.” He adduces his evidence in a foot-note, in which he says that 
in “ the whole tenor of the ‘ Origin of Species ’ there seems to be a 
studied non- recognition of any higher influence than chance, external con- 
ditions, nature, law, and other kindred activities.” In other words, he says 
that Mr. Darwin is a materialist, who ignores the existence of the Deity ; 
and that the whole tenor of his work shows this to be the case. We will 
return presently to the statements of this gentleman, who is “ guided solely 
by a desire to arrive at Truth and who wishes to “ deal charitably towards 
the opinions of others and will pass on to those, not of an opponent, but 
a warm partisan — the author of the work under criticism. 
Speaking of Mr. Darwin’s theory : — “ As I apprehend it,” says our 
author, “for I have put it into a shape more convenient for common pur- 
poses than I could find verbatim in his book ; as I apprehend it, I say, it 
is that all the phenomena of organic nature, past and present,* result from, 
or are caused by, the inter-action of these properties of organic matter 
which we have called Atavism and Variability, with the Conditions of 
Existence ; or, in other words, given the existence of organic matter, its 
tendency to transmit its properties, and its tendency occasionally to vary ; 
and lastly, given the conditions of existence by which organic matter is 
surrounded ; that these put together are the causes of the present and past 
conditions of organic nature .” 
Judging from the remarkable similarity between these two versions of 
Mr. Darwin’s theory, our readers might be disposed to think that both 
writers must be correct — the opponent, who stigmatises him as an atheist, 
or something akin to it ; and the advocate, who appears to endorse his views. 
But we will now let Mr. Darwin speak for himself : — 
“ I believe f that animals have descended from at most four or five 
progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would 
lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants 
have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful 
guide.”X . . . (After showing that all living things have certain properties 
in common) . . . “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably 
all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended 
from some one primordial form, into which life was breathed.” 
Again : — 
“Authors of the highest' eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the 
view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it 
accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the 
Creator that the production and extinction of the past and present 
inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like 
those determining the birth and death of the individual. ”|| 
* These italics are our own. 
+ Here also the italics are ours. 
J Origin of Species, p. 484. 
|| Ibid. p. 488. 
