iB8 3 .] 
Flank Attacks on Evolution . 
251 
Darwin admits, in the manner commonly called miraculous, 
is that any reason that we should adopt the theory of me- 
chanical, individual creation ? There are writers who con- 
tend that if the origin of the first living being demanded a 
breach of the law of continuity, a direCt Divine interference, 
every animal and vegetable form may have taken its origin 
in the like manner. To this argument we oppose the “ prin- 
ciple of parsimony,” which bids us not invoke a “ Dens ex 
machina ” where it is not absolutely imperative. We see, 
further, if we are able and willing to weigh fairly the evi- 
dence,, that God did not mould every plant and animal on 
the “ contract ” principle of the Old School, but allowed 
them to be evolved by “ descent with modification ” from 
anterior forms of life. 
We have now to notice a portion of Mr. Howard’s pam- 
phlet which we would gladly pass over were if not essential 
for an understanding of his position and his animus . We 
refer to the manner in which he, in his attack upon Evolu- 
tionism, drags in Auguste Comte and Positivism. He writes 
in his “ Conclusion ” : — “There is an irreconcilable opposi- 
tion, a total contrariety, between this doCtrine [i.e., ‘that 
life is a gift of the Almighty ’] and the religion of M. Comte 
which would wholly subvert the existing order of things. 
The adherents of Positivism and the disciples of Darwin 
are sufficiently outspoken on these subjects.” He quotes, 
in a note, the “ Gazette des Tribunaux ” for March 2nd, 
1870, describing Comte’s repudiation and desertion of his 
lawful wife, who had been his faithful companion and nurse 
during an attack of insanity, and his —to us — disgusting 
liaison with Clotilde de Vaux, the wife of a convict. 
Now supposing any of those “ average English minds ” 
whose “ impracticably practical character,” “ strong com- 
mon sense,” * and “ attachment to cherished traditional 
opinions ” the author has vaunted, reads and considers the 
matter we have just quoted. Will he not, finding Comte 
and Positivism suddenly introduced in so unfavourable a 
light in the peroration of an attack upon Evolutionism, be 
led to suppose that the two doctrines are closely allied, and 
that Comte was probably a forerunner and fellow-labourer 
of Charles Darwin ? Now we are not at liberty to assume 
that Mr. Howard wished or intended that his readers should 
fall into this mistake. Yet he has certainly taken no pains 
to save them from so gross an error. Personally he must 
* This is a thing of the past. The Englishman of the present day has 
small claims either to practicality or common sense, and is, of all civilised 
nations, the most easily thrown into a state of panic and stampedo. 
