237 
and it would be easy to show that, instead of the two being alike, they are 
unlike. There is not a process, there is not an eminence on the bone which 
is not different from that which he says it is like. There may be a likeness 
in some places, but it is not fair to say that the two are alike. A great deal 
more might be said with regard to the same sort of language. It has been 
stated that I have been somewhat merciless ; but the gentleman who thought 
so was so merciful to me, that I hardly like to criticise what he has said. The 
questions which I have dealt with are not mere evanescent notions, just 
passing through the mind ; they are matters that affect peojde who think at 
all in a most important way, and some of the deepest ideas that exist in the 
human mind are unquestionably greatly influenced by the views an individual 
may thus be led to take as to the nature of life. The whole argument is a 
very long one, and can, of course, only be discussed in parts. I have dealt 
with a portion of it to-night, in the hope that I might be able to help the 
discussions of this Institute, rather than with a desire to ventilate my own 
views on the subject. With regard to the question of criticism generally, I 
would say, that if criticism should cease, scientific inquiry must unquestionably 
come to an end. Criticism is the soul of the whole thing, and I think 
Professor Huxley himself has said that it is the soul and essence of science. 
But people who venture to criticise are too frequently put down, and the 
result is that there are many men who dare not express their opinions. Many 
years ago I felt a certain amount of diffidence in doing so myself, and no one, 
from what I have written, can form a notion of the strength of the convictions 
I have acquired. One does not want to create a “to-do.” Still, if any one 
likes to take up these doctrines, I see do harm in it, except where they are 
taken up on data which cannot be substantiated ; and this, of course, is at 
least irritating and unpleasant to any one desirous of ascertaining the truth. 
But when it comes to being accused of being “ orthodox,” that, I must confess, 
is a thing I very seriously resent. Dr. Tyndall, I may mention, instead of 
answering some observations I had made, merely stated that they were the 
opinions of a Professor who was distinguished as belonging to a college 
well known for its orthodoxy. This sort of treatment is puerile, and 
no one likes to be answered in such a way. The fact is that every criticism 
I have made, and every word in the paper I have read to-night, might 
have been written by an atheist. There is not a sentence in what I have 
put forward that could convict me of any religious opinion whatever. I 
have dealt with the matter from a purely scientific point of view. What I 
say is. Let us treat these subjects simply as matters of reason and argument, 
and never mind to what conclusions we may be led. Let us have the facts on 
each side, and see which view is nearest to the truth. That is the way in which 
these questions ought to be considered ; but it is not the way in which they 
frequently are considered. Certain statements are put forward in the most 
positive language, and a good deal of terrorism is exercised over those who 
presume to differ from them. This I regard as very unfortunate. All I want, 
and I am sure it is all which those who are on my side want, is fair dis- 
