564 A Change of Front. [September, 
science. Whoever admits this maxim to be universally true 
is not only entitled but committed to a belief in Evolution, 
whatever cause or causes he may have to assign for the 
phenomenon.” Yet at the same time, because man has not 
succeeded up to the present date in resolving the chemical 
elements into some one ultimate substance, he holds that 
“ "The chemical analogy threatens continued hostility to 
the theory of Evolution as long as that theory maintains a 
unity of source for all life.” But to what agencies does he 
ascribe the development of species ? With the explanations 
given by Mr. Darwin he is far from satisfied. As the main 
points in favour of the great reformer of natural history, 
he enumerates “ the extensive modifications producible on 
plants and animals under domestication with artificial 
selection ; some remarkable cases of reversion in various 
breeds to certain characteristics of a common ancestor ; the 
close anatomical similarity in particular points observable 
in creatures of extreme diversity ; the existence of rudi- 
mentary organs ; and last, but not least, the absence of any 
definite opposition theory on an adequate scientific basis.” 
He omits in this summary the evidence drawn from the 
distribution and the migration of species, from the geolo- 
gical record, and from embryology. He considers that the 
“ weakness in Darwin’s Darwinism ” (sic !) lies in the insuf- 
ficiency of the survival of the fittest and of sexual selection 
to account for the varied forms of life. In this opinion, as 
our readers well know, he is not singular. Many competent 
judges, whose writings have been criticised in the “Journal 
of Science,” take the same view. But he does not, like 
Prof. Cope, raise the point that “ Selection ” and “ Survival” 
fail to explain the origin of the fittest. Nor do his moral 
instindts revolt at the consecration which Darwin’s theory 
seems to confer upon the most painful phenomenon in 
Nature — the struggle for existence. On the contrary, he 
accepts the gospel of competition in its full extent : — 
“ Everything in Nature, man not excepted, is to be put on 
its mettle ; the great meaning and moral of Nature is 
adtivity and progress, and one of her greatest functions is 
to stimulate man, even by what seem hardships and cruel- 
ties, to yet intense^ and more divine activity.” 
As regards sexual selection, he considers that Mr. Darwin 
“ has forgotten to account for the origin of the instinct for 
the beautiful thus assumed as existing in animals.”* Else- 
* He might be referred to the work of Mr. Grant Allen. See Journal of 
Science, 1879, p. 395, 
