i88i. 
Scientific Arrogance . 
251 
represents my conclusions as at variance with those of sci- 
entists in general. Of course, to the extent that a book 
contains anything original, it must differ from the opinions 
expressed by other writers ; but I believe that what is 
described as 4 the evolution of species ’ is a veiy commonly- 
accepted doCtrine of scientists at the present time. My 
book might have been appropriately enough entitled ‘ The 
Evolution of the Earth.’ It simply assumes that the same 
laws which have been observed in the creation of species 
have also been concerned in the origin and development of 
the globe upon which they stand ; that, in short, the evolu- 
tion of species has been part of a great scheme of creation 
by which the Earth itself has undergone a progressive deve- 
lopment. And certainly this conclusion is not inconsistent 
with the general teaching of geologists, who assume that 
the conditions fitted for the existence of a higher develop- 
ment of animal and vegetable life must have preceded their 
aCtual existence on the Earth. It is true that I do not 
believe in the theory of some modern astronomers who think 
that the Earth and all the other planetary bodies are des- 
tined to drop into the Sun ; but, as a matter of fact , the 
latest measurement of the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 
connection with the transit of Venus is entirely confirmatory 
of my view of creation, and shows that the Earth is receding 
from the Sun. And previous measurements supported the 
same conclusion.” 
I think it will be allowed that my language could not 
have been more conciliatory and temperate, and yet 1 have 
waited in vain for the publication of my letter. It is obvious 
that my critic professes to be “ a man of science.” Indeed 
he must have fathomed the depth of my “ignorance of 
many simple chemical and physical faCts,” or otherwise he 
could, not have discovered the extent of their profundity, — 
an intellectual exploit which fills me with astonishment. 
Certainly it would be difficult to give an account of my book 
more illustrative of scientific arrogance or more calculated 
to mislead the reader as to its true character. Instead of 
relying upon reason and observation to confute my “ very 
excellent fooling,” he appeals to prejudice throughout, and 
presents the reader with a garbled and fanciful account of 
the contents of my book. I am represented as wholly at 
variance with “ chemists, physicists, astronomers, and biol- 
ogists,” whilst in reality the views I have propounded are 
largely supported by quotations from writers in the several 
departments of science ; so much so that my fault has been 
described by a friendly critic as “ over-quotation.” It is 
s y 
