193 
think that the great eloquence employed, and the strong arguments and 
large number of facts adduced by Mr. Callard are hardly reiuired for the 
purpose of upsetting the Darwinian theory, which, after all, is little 
more than an hypothesis. Professor Huxley has said, as stated in the 
paper, “that the paleontological discoveries of the last decade are so 
completely in accordance with the requirements of this hypothesis, that if it 
had not existed the paleontologists would have had to invent it.” I cannot 
compliment Mr. Huxley on the clearness of his language. When I read 
the passage I hardly knew what he meant by saying “ that if it had 
not existed the paleontologists would have had to invent it.” If what 
had not existed ? Evolution or the hypothesis ? Which of the two would 
the paleontologist have had to invent ? Looking at it grammatically, it is 
loosely expressed ; looking at it logically, the consequences do not follow. 
Putting the most favourable construction upon it, and supposing the Professor 
to mean that if evolution had not existed, as a matter of fact, the 
paleontologist would have had to invent it, — and I think you will agree with 
me that that is the best construction we can place upon it,— what does it 
come to ? If it did not exist, it must have been invented. What is 
invention ? We discover a feet or truth ; we invent a theory. Truth exists 
independently of man ; an invention is the act of man. To conclude, I would 
say that the burden of proof rests on those who advance this new theory. They 
certainly have not established it by evidence. It is imaginative, fanciful, 
and speculative, the result of defective induction, illogical ratiocination. It 
is unsupported by, or rather it is contradicted by, the evidence ; and it rests 
for its success on bold and unwarranted assertion. Such an assertion was 
that made in a lecture delivered in America, — that it is demonstratively 
proved “ as strongly as the Copernican theory.” I only hope the orator had 
a very “ soft ” audience to whom he could address such arguments, and I can 
only suppose that he knew very little about the Copernican theory. If he 
had known that the astronomer-general observes the stars and calculates 
their positions, and two years in advance publishes the results of these 
calculations in the Nautical Almanach which is used by navigators in their 
voyages round the globe, and that all the vessels engaged in these long 
voyages are dependent on the Copernican theory, I think he might have 
shown a little more modesty in the assertion he made that the theory he 
has propounded is as strong as that of Copernicus. 
Mr. E. Charlesworth, F.G.S. (a visitor). — I was extremely gratified at 
receiving, two or three days ago, from Captain Petrie, a copy of the paper 
that has been read this evening. I read it with the greatest pleasure and 
interest, and to-night have the still further advantage of listening to its 
rehearsal by the author himself. But the conclusion at which I arrived on 
reading the paper was this, — that while it conveys, in a most instructive 
manner and with a high order of ability, a great deal of what can be 
advanced in opposition to the theory of evolution, yet, taking the paper as a 
whole, it fails to carry conviction to my mind. I will now proceed to tell 
you in what I think the weak feature of the paper consists, and it is this : 
VOL. XVI. O 
