25 
namely, that the intrusion of Scriptural considerations into a 
scientific discussion is as theologically wrong as it is scientifically 
mischievous — that it is our duty to investigate the Creator’s 
works with the utmost freedom in every direction, without 
entertaining the slightest dread that our inquiries can ever 
prejudice the moral and religious truths that are contained in 
His word. He reminded the Society that truth can never 
injure truth, but only error ; and that we might, on this 
subject, use the words which Galileo employed in replying 
to objections precisely similar in their principle to some of 
those which Mr. Darwen’s theory has encountered. “ Quin 
ipsa philosophia, talibus disputationibus non nisi beneficium 
recipit. Nam si vera proponit homo ingeniosus veritatisque 
amans nova ad earn accepio fiet ; sin falsa, refutatione eorum 
priores tanto magis stabilientur .” — Galilcei syst. cosni., p.42. 
An interesting discussion took place, in which Dr. Fairbairn, 
Dr. Clay, Mr. Binney, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Francis, Mr. Hull, 
and others took part. 
Mr. Hull, F.G.S., reviewed the geological evidence bearing 
on the “ Development ” theory, arriving at the conclusion 
that on geological grounds that theory was altogether un- 
tenable. At the same time, as far as regards the permanency 
of varieties, and their consequent establishment as species, 
the doctrine of Mr. Darwen appeared sound up to a certain 
point. The distribution of the Brachiopoda, and some other 
forms, appeared to be capable of explanation on these grounds, 
but Mr. Hull contended that it was impossible to account for 
the first appearance of numerous highly organized groups of 
animals on the hypothesis of natural selection, or any similar 
theory of development. 
