( 292 ) 
[May, 
ANALYSES OF BOOKS. 
Special Creation and Evolution. An Exposition of the Opening 
Chapters of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s “ Principles of Biology,” 
Part III. By Constance C. W. Naden. Birmingham : 
Cornish Bros. 
The substance of this treatise was read in January of the present 
year before the “ Sociological Secftion ” of the Birmingham 
Natural History and Microscopical Society. All thoughtful 
readers must agree that it presents a masterly analysis of the teach- 
ings of Mr. Herbert Spencer concerning the great question of 
Evolution. It may be well to point out the fundamental differ- 
ence in Mr. Spencer s point of view from that of Buffon, Lamarck, 
Oken, and the two Darwins. This difference is none the less 
capital, although the conclusion reached is substantially the 
same. 
Charles Darwin — we use his name as a general expression for 
an entire school, including his forerunners, his coadjutors, and 
his followers — attacks the problem a posteriori, as a naturalist, 
fiom a minute survey of the phenomena of animal and vegetal 
life. These phenomena he finds inconsistent with the hypothesis 
of special — or, as it is otherwise called, mechanical or contrabt- 
creation and to be explained only on the hypothesis of gradual 
development from some pristine form or forms of life. 
Mr. Spencer, on the other hand, as a philosopher, takes up the 
question from the a priori side. He shows that the hypothesis 
of special creation involves difficulties, intellectual and even 
moial, which amount even to unthinkableness, but which con- 
versely all become powerful arguments in favour of Evolution. 
It is utterly idle, or rather much worse than idle, to inquire 
which of these two ways of approaching the subject is the more 
eftecftual, and consequently whether Darwin or Spencer has had 
the greater share in the great mental revolution of the nineteenth 
century. The two methods mutually complement and confirm 
each other. Darwin and Spencer may be likened to two allied 
generals who arrive simultaneously by different routes, and fall 
upon the enemy the one in front and the other irl the iear. This 
illustration, however, in one respect falls short of the reality of 
the case. We have no reason to believe that Spencer and 
Darwin were working in concert, or that either was at all influ- 
enced by the results of the other. 
