218 
with a pretty general expression of dissent in the meeting. If people won 
only consider, that for thousands of years no one ever thought that anything 
like “ development,” or Darwinism, was taught in Genesis, they would surely 
refrain from the vain endeavour to import that meaning now mto the old 
Mosaic narrative,— into the language of a book (to quote Mr. Warmgton’s 
words*) “ written in plain and simple style, which has been in the hands ot 
theologians complete for nigh 1,800 years, and on which they have bestowed 
unremitting study ; where no new facts can ever be rising up to disconcert 
past conclusions ; and where, therefore, if anywhere, unanimity would seem 
to be inevitable, and diversity of opinion most inexplicable and criminal 
As regards the charge of not understanding Darwinism, I replied by citing 
Professor Carl Vogt, who, as a physiologist, is just as eminent on the Continent 
as Professor Huxley is in England, and who, as a Darwinian, differs totally 
from the latter. I was somewhat surprised that a debater so clear-headed 
and courteous as Sir John Lubbock, should have cared to repeat what is now 
a mere hackneyed charge against all who oppose Darwinism. When the 
Darwinians are themselves agreed about the theory it might be time enough 
to expect objectors to “ understand it.” But Sir J ohn Lubbock surely over- 
looks the drift of my argument altogether, when he makes that reply, even 
were he right in his assertion. My main argument in the present paper, he 
might see, does not require me to understand Darwinism. It is a redudio 
ad absurdum, assuming the possibility of the theory, and not questioning m 
detail its processes. Of course, I do not believe that even a monkey, and still 
less a man, could be developed in the Darwinian way. But granting that we 
have got the imaginary “ speechless man,” or the real “ low-caste savage, to 
Win with, then, I say, you cannot even then, with such a beginning, get the 
world as it is, or arrive at the civilized man. AH our experience is against 
this All the facts we know are contrary to it ; and, if so, it is not possib y 
true, and it is irrational to believe it. It is not only not “ science,” but it is con- 
trary to all we really do know. I have no doubt that Darwinism can be and 
will be (if it has not already been) refuted at other stages. I do not think it 
has established even a single step of its almost infinite assumptions. But e 
that as it may, -and raising no primary objections,— I have maintained that 
it must stop at man ; because, as I have proved, civilization has not, and can- 
not be, developed out of savagery. Everybody knows that it is only when 
Darwinism comes to be applied to man, that its conclusions ostensibly clash 
with “ time-honoured traditions,” and what Professor Huxley caffs “ strongly- 
rooted prejudices.” I have therefore met it at that point. 
With respect to Mr. Crawfurd’s observations, I am bound to notice, that 
besides what he is above reported to have said, he also disclaimed being a 
polygenist (very much to my surprise), though it will be seen he still thinks 
mankind have advanced from an originally savage condition. But his refer- 
ence to our ancestorshaving been barbarians, is nothing against my argument. 
I have not denied the possibility of a rise from a “ barbarous ” to a civilized 
condition, using the words strictly, but a rise from utter “ savagery. u 
* Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Instnute, vol. i., p. 101* 
