39G 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
becoming modesty and caution of the laws which he sees operating in 
nature, and only approaching the Lawgiver with reverence at the conclu- 
sion of his labours to pay him his tribute of praise in what appears to 
him to be the most fitting manner. His interpreter, or critic, whichever 
our author claims to be, whilst he confounds the naturalist’s inference as 
to what is probable , with his belief, founded upon actual observation, con- 
cerning secondary causes, totally ignores the author’s reference to the First 
Cause. 
Mr. Darwin addresses the world of science ; and he doe3 so, as we just 
observed, modestly, cautiously, and with due regard to the difficulties that 
militate against the acceptance of his own theory. In fact, he is by far the 
fairest critic who has ever dealt with the views that he himself has propounded. 
His interpreter to the working classes, and to many very young 
students, harangues these with great ability, and with unbounded confi- 
dence in his own opinion concerning all that his author believes, and all 
that he supposes him to believe in regard to secondary causes ; but in his 
address he completely ignores his reference to the Creator. 
It is about seventy years since a remarkably able French naturalist, 
Lamarck, drew attention to what we may call the “theory of progressive 
development ” in the animal races ; but his method of explaining the visible 
phenomena has not been deemed satisfactory. Fie was unable to show 
“ experimentally that even races could be produced ” as he supposes species 
to have originated. Now another naturalist, of equal ability, has shown 
that, under certain conditions,* races can be produced artificially ; but he 
has not been able to evolve a new species from a variety, and his theory is 
admitted by himself to be imperfect. On this second attempt to solve the 
mystery of nature, our author steps forward and says to the masses (many 
of whom have never before heard the name of Lamarck mentioned), 
“ Lamarck was a speculator (not quite such an objectionable one as 
some one else whom he names) and his theory has pretty well dropped into 
oblivion, as it deserved to do. Put him on the shelf, and if persons tell 
you that Mr. Darwin is groping towards truth as he did, I won’t instruct 
you what to think of their judgment, but will leave you to think what 
you like, and believe in Darwin. ‘Darwinism, or nothing,’ is my motto 
— to-day — but, mind, I don’t pledge myself to him, and should anything 
turn up to-morrow, that appears to serve our purpose better, I shall come 
and tell you so.” We confess we cannot hold our beliefs with such a “light 
hand,” and “ part with them as cheerfully ” as does the author, “ the 
moment they are proved contrary to fact, great or small,” and we repeat, 
that for the present, we prefer Nothingism to “Darwinism.” Thus, at 
least, we shall retain our judgment for any emergency that may arise 
hereafter. 
Whilst referring to “ isms,” we cannot refrain from mentioning that there 
* To understand this question properly, and judge of the difference 
between the views of Lamarck and Darwin, the reader should carefully 
consider both, as there are similarities between them winch do not appear 
on the surface. 
