116 
PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON 
“ the evolution ” of an invention, say, of a watch, or of a steam- 
engine, or of a telescope (see Nature , September 27th, 1906), and 
(to quote from the Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society ) 
we may speak of “ the evolution of the fine adjustment of the 
microscope.” In these uses of the term the basic idea appears 
to be that of progression, i.e., continuous change attended by 
improvement.* 
More serious attempts at a definition tell the bewildered 
inquirer that Evolution 
“ is the theory that the condition of things at any moment is the 
result of the condition of things at the previous moment . . . 
a series of orderly changes, the condition of things at any moment 
being the result of the condition at the previous moment ” (Wilson), t 
“ We know, of course, that Evolution means the passage from the 
more general to the more special, and that although as the general 
result an onward advance has taken place, yet specialization does 
not always or necessarily mean ‘ highness ’ of organization in the 
sense in which the term is usually employed” (Traquair). 
Evolution is “the law of the continuous re-distribution of matter and 
motion,” or, more formally, “ Evolution is a change from indefinite 
incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity, 
through continuous differentiations and integrations” (Spencer). 
Evolution is an “ indefinite and confused movement of the mind of 
the age ” (Wiegand).J “ A series of orderly changes,” a “ passage,” 
a “law,” a “change,” an “ indefinite and confused movement.” 
Modern “ Evolution ” theories. — Of modern Evolution theories 
the most influential are the monistic and atheistic doctrine of 
Haeckel, the practically agnostic doctrine of Spencer, and the 
theistic doctrine of Le Conte. Differing in many and important 
features, they agree in a common postulate — the transmutation 
of species, and deny the axiom that like causes produce like 
results. 
Why some people accept the “ doctrine.” — That so unnatural a 
theory should have been welcomed by many able men, may at 
first sight seem surprising. In truth it has been taken on its 
oxen professioxi. It offers an excuse to some for disbelieving the 
Genesis record of creation, and hence throws the shadow of doubt 
* In Nature , August 22nd, 1907, we read of “ the evolution of wound 
treatment during the last forty years.” 
t Problems of Religion and Science, p. 51. 
1 “ Darwinismus.” Some of the disagreements of evolutionists are 
interestingly set out in “Vertebrate Morphology.” (See Nature, April 
30th, 1903.) 
