267 
I can make what I have said intelligible, the argument is fatal to the develop- 
ment or evolutionary theory. Professor Huxley, in his Genealogy of Animals, 
thus defines evolution : — “ The mutual interaction, according to definite laws, 
of the forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity ot 
the universe was composed.” I will not stay to ask whence the laws or 
forces come, but only to say that if in the case supposed, there are 
molecules which have a mutual interaction according to definite laws, then 
the stage of progress which that interaction produces must be in all 
respects and everywhere the same. There would be no room for the variety 
of structure that we find, and the dissimilarity of form that we see in the 
whole of creation. If the molecules acted from the beginning, according 
to definite laws, upon each other, and thereby produced certain effects, then 
those definite laws must produce the same effects ; and so we should see the 
products of that work in the same stage all over the world, whereas we really 
do find the very contrary to be the fact. This is what I meant. Dr. Wain- 
wright complains that I have stated my conclusions too dogmatically at the 
commencement of my paper. I quite admit the charge. I am lecturing 
to a philosophical society, but even in a philosophical society it is necessary 
to sound the rappel as it were, and to put forward with as much force as 
possible the truths which you afterwards prove. This is not a mere teach- 
ing paper addressed to a class, it is one in which I have attempted to gain 
the ear by stating clearly and fully the propositions which I intended to 
maintain, even at the risk of some reiteration. In the valuable observations 
of Dr. Wainwright there were many remarks which were connected with 
the meaning of terms ; and with regard to them I would simply say, that if 
I had had an opportunity in the time allotted to me of annexing an inter- 
pretation clause to my paper, I think we should have found ourselves pretty 
well agreed. With regard to the point raised about the barriers of instinct, 
I specially refrained from carrying that any further, though it was an 
interesting subject to go on with, because I did not wish to burden the 
paper with an accumulation of mere illustration. I cannot consent to throw 
overboard that which is, in my view, the very essence of the question, 
namely, whether the phenomena make the laws, or whether the laws 
are independent of the phenomena. I concede that it would be better 
to use the word “rule” than the word “law.” We are in the habit 
of using them almost one for another, but the word “ rule ” would better 
express the sense of what we mean in this argument than the word “ law.” 
I think I have shown that there are rules and there is law beyond and 
above phenomena, and, therefore, I do not think it a fact that the pheno- 
mena are above the law, which is the contention on the other side. It was 
well put that philosophy and physical science are two handles which we 
must work together, and the value of this society is that it does work one 
handle which the scientists do not touch. As to my authority for the state- 
ment about modern opinions concerning geology and uniformitarianism ; 
