256 Flank Attacks on Evolution. [May, 
bearings of his conclusions. Darwin, as far as we know, 
had simply in view to display the phenomena of the 
organic world in a form worthy to be called scientific. 
Some of his disciples, as well as not a few of his opponents, 
are heterodox ; but that they are heterodox because Evolu- 
tionists is simply a railing accusation. Mr. Howard would 
do well to reflect that Mr. Wallace, Prof. St. George Mivart, 
Dr. Drysdale, Dr. Dallinger, and numbers of leading Evo- 
lutionists both in this country and especially in America, 
repudiate . Atheism as distinctly as does the “ Victoria 
Institute.” 
It may perhaps be contended that Mr. Howard is not 
speaking of Evolutionists in the passage which we have 
quoted. Let us therefore look further. He writes : — “ It 
might almost be said that they [the prophets and teachers 
of this new doCtrine] form a mutually supporting and a 
somewhat exclusive seCt. ... It is not the present genera- 
tion of Englishmen who will be reconciled to the thought 
that they are in their origin viler than the sea-weed, and in 
their gradual fashioning improved out of the most lowly 
organised animals that the earth and the sea support.” 
Lest this should not seem sufficiently decisive, the author 
refers to and quotes in his Appendix a passage from the 
“Edinburgh Review” of April, 1873. It runs: — “The 
practical influence of the new doCtrine is seen in the rise 
and rapid growth of a pseudo-scientific seCt — the seCt of the 
Darwinian Evolutionists. This seCt is largely recruited 
from the crowd of facile minds ever ready to follow the 
newest fashion in Art or Science, in social or religious life, 
as accidents of association or influence may determine. . . . 
The evidence in favour of the central Darwinian doCtrine is 
notoriously deficient, but this is no hindrance to its enthusi- 
astic acceptance. . . . Another note of sectarianism is their 
tendency to intolerance. The tendency is manifested, per- 
haps, in its extremest form amongst the rank and file of the 
seCt. It displays itself, however, in various shapes, some of 
which are amusing enough. This tendency to intolerance 
appears also in the writings of the school, especially in the 
less distinguished. The tone of the discussion in many cases 
involves the tacit assumption that the Evolutionists are the 
only wise men, and that wisdom itself will die with them.” 
Who is the writer quoted we know not. For anything that 
appears to the contrary he may be some litterateur, unwilling 
and perhaps unable to weigh the evidence in favour of Evo- 
lution with the patience which it demands. The “ seCt,” as 
he calls it, has secured the adhesion of the great majority of 
