237 
that so grave a position ought not to have been tacitly assumed. Mr. Howard 
also puts together Prof. Allen Thomson, Lamarck, Wallace, and Darwin, as 
advocates of “ these doctrines,” whereas their doctrines are not identical, 
nor do they all necessarily make “ Creation give way to evolution.” 
“ If life,” says Mr. Howard, “ can only proceed from life, the whole doctrine 
of evolution fails at the very commencement ” (page 192). Here we certainly 
need the qualifying word “ materialistic,” for the Christian sees no difficulty. 
Evolution necessarily postulates a starting-point, and for the Christian (or 
even the Theist), that starting-point is the living God. Non-Theistic 
evolutionists, like Tyndall, are worse off, granting Mr. Howard’s “if”; but 
they do not go quite so far ; only saying that there is no evidence of the 
present evolution of the living from the non-living ; they do not affirm that 
it cannot be even now. When, however, they assert that it was so once, 
their own practical science is their most formidable foe. 
Mr. Howard cannot really misapprehend the meaning of the phrase, “ the 
survival of the fittest,” but he certainly seems to me to misrepresent it, as 
though “ the fittest ” meant the highest or noblest, instead of merely the 
one most fitted to succeed under given circumstances. The “ universal 
prevalence of destroyers ” does not discredit the doctrine, — rather the reverse. 
They destroy those least able to destroy or to escape them ; those, that is, who 
on common ground meet them at a disadvantage. A cat destroys a garden- 
warbler ; Mr. Howard asks, “Is the cat more fit to survive ? ” Not, perhaps, 
more “ fit,” but more fitted, under the conditions of the case. Change the 
conditions a little ; let the cat’s only chance of life lie in catching the bird ; 
let the warbler be a little more on the alert, or a little quicker in its move- 
ments : it escapes, the cat dies. Under these circumstances the bird is most 
“ fitted to survive,” and survives accordingly. 
In fact, Mr. Howard, in the next page, in forcible and eloquent language, 
teaches the same doctrine : — ‘ ‘ There is no mercy in the ordinary course of 
nature. Her language is woe to the weak and to the miserable.” “As soon 
as health and strength decline, numberless destroyers seize upon their prey.” 
“ Nature is concerned for the perfection and continuance of the race rather 
than of the individual. ... It is obviously an advantage that the strongest 
should survive.” What is this but “ the survival of the fittest ” ? “ But 
what,” adds Mr. Howard, “ are we to say about the defeated ?” That they 
do not survive because they are not so fitted. The weakest go to the wall. — 
Fee victis! 
I entirely agree with Mr. Howard, that the special distinction which 
differentiates man from the lower animals lies in his “ pneumatic nature.” 
But it is not so clear that on this ground “ he must have required a separate 
act of creation” (p. 211). Surely it were enough for the necessities of the case 
if the 7r vEv^ict were separately created, the body and soul being derived from 
existing forms, with such modifications as it might please God to ordain. 
There is nothing contrary to either Creation or Providence in believing that 
God might as readily, and, to speak reverently, as fittingly, have added 
VOL. XII. R 
