256 Scientific Arrogance. iMay, 
progressive change or development. The creation of species, 
he in effect argues, is not the result of natural selection, but 
of conditions which promote a change (progressive or other- 
wise ?) so great as to represent a new species. This is my 
conclusion : — I suggest that the progressive development of 
species could only arise in connection with a corresponding deve- 
lopment of the Earth itself ; and I have propounded what I 
conceive to be the laws which govern not only the creation 
of species, but every form of matter; which laws are given 
at length in my book, and, briefly, in an article which ap- 
peared in the “ Journal of Science ” for August last. 
The ire of my critic seems to have been especially roused 
by the ninth chapter, which suggests that the Earth has 
derived its existence from the Sun by processes still in ope- 
ration, and by the astronomical evidence in its support which 
is given in the next chapter. He appears to have a vested 
interest in the theory that the Earth and all that is upon it 
are destined only to afford fuel to keep up for a little time longer 
the fire that is consuming the Sun. He represents me as 
affirming that the planets are little orbs “ knocked off” from 
the Sun, and that they are “ picking up ” their satellites on 
the way. Such a description might be consistent enough 
with the mechanical view of Nature which, contrary to the 
teaching of Newton, sets up gravitation as the god of crea- 
tion, but it is utterly opposed to the teaching of my book. 
I show, on the contrary, that plants and animals are consti- 
tuted with strict reference to the present condition of the 
Earth. To use the words of the late Dr. Phillips : — 
“ Deprive the atmosphere of its carbonic acid — plants dis- 
appear; let phosphate of lime be absent — not only vertebrate 
animals vanish, but a large part of both the animal and 
vegetable race would languish and become unproductive.” 
Paley’s “ Natural Theology” is an elaborate exposition of 
the relationship which subsists between animal and vege- 
table existence as now enduring and the Earth’s present 
condition. The constitution of vegetable and animal exist- 
ence is, in fact, governed by the constitution of the Earth, 
and it therefore follows that their constitutional changes, as 
described by geologists, afford evidence of a general corre- 
sponding change in the constitution of the Earth. This 
relationship is entirely inconsistent with the idea of a body 
falling into the Sun as the result of a blind mechanical force. 
Attraction describes a relationship, but not a reason of rela- 
tionship ; it expresses a motion, but not a reason of motion. 
If it be asserted that the Earth is advancing towards the 
Sun because it is attracted by it, it may be replied that it is 
