252 
Flank Attacks on Evolution, 
[May, 
know — at least we cannot insult him by the contrary suppo- 
sition — that Auguste Comte was an upholder, even as Cuvier, 
Agassiz, or Dawson, of the permanent distinctness of or- 
ganic species ; he must know that, with perhaps the single 
exception of George Henry Lewes, the Positivists, with 
their present leader Robin, take the same view, and condemn 
Darwinism in language sufficiently vigorous. Many of Mr. 
Howard’s hearers must also have been fully aware of the 
fundamental opposition — the difference toto ccelo — between 
Evolutionism and Positivism, between Darwin and Comte. 
Yet none of them, as it appears, in the subsequent dis- 
cussion had the candour to point out the misconception to 
which the speaker’s words might give occasion. They al- 
lowed, tacitly at least, the moral shortcomings of Comte to 
prejudice the public against the dodtrine of Evolution. 
We have, of course, no wish to defend either Comte or 
his followers. We regard them as enemies to Science, espe- 
cially as regards physiological experimentation, and we are 
anxious merely that their full antagonism to Evolutionism 
should be clearly recognised. At the same time it may, 
perhaps, be questioned in how far an exposure of the moral 
errors and shortcomings of any writer may legitimately be 
used for the refutation of his theories ? It may further be 
■denied that Evolutionism is or can be, if rightly interpreted, 
“ subversive of the existing order of things.” That order, 
from the very fadt of its existence, must be in some degree 
in accordance with man’s nature and with his surroundings. 
Those who believe in catastrophism, in sudden destructions 
of all living, and in re-creation, may aim at revolutions in 
matters social and political, but the consistent Evolutionist 
can indulge in no such aberrations. 
M. de Casamajor introduces his attack on the New Natural 
History in a somewhat different form. He entertains fears 
that “ the Christian family is attacked; that Episcopacy, 
the Councils, and the Pope are calumniated” ; and hence he 
wraps up his onslaught on Evolutionism in a series of essays 
on higher education. He, like M. l’Abbe Moigno, proposes 
to “ become offensive.” In what sense he succeeds in so 
doing may be judged from the following passage : — 
“ XI. Darwinism supposes two impossible fadts. i. Life 
derived from brute matter. 2. The existence and growth of a 
being cast naked and feeble upon the earth.” 
“1. Life does not spring from blind matter. If in fadt 
the inherent forces of matter, or chance, have been already 
able to form organised beings, why in our days do we not 
see in the air, in the ocean, on the mountains or the plains, 
