288 
In dealing with Haeckehs doctrine he has taken simply the consistent 
doctrine of evolution, all the others being, to my mind, utterly inconsistent 
and self-contradictory. Evolution is a dream, founded on nothing — 
certainly not on facts ; for in whatever direction one looks in order to 
compare it with facts, it breaks down. The reason why it is so popular is 
that it is the fashion. We need not be ashamed to be laughed at for not 
going with the fashion, which certainly seems to be as powerful with men 
as with women. I, for one, am most heartily glad to be out of the fashion. 
I should be ashamed of my own reason if I believed in the doctrine of 
evolution at all ; because, as I have just said, it is utterly inconsistent with 
facts : and, if I know anything about science, it is this, that science consists 
of knowledge which is gradually built up from the observation of facts until 
you come to a superstructure of proof, not worked out, as in the case of 
evolution, from a dream in which all the facts are imagined to coincide with 
preconceived hypotheses. I can fully sustain Mr. Hassell in what he has 
said with regard to the admirable experiments made by Professor Tyndall 
and the proof he has been enabled to furnish that spontaneous generation 
cannot be shown to exist. I was present and heard the discussion which 
took place before the E-oyal Society when these very able and admirable 
experiments were put before us by Professor Tyndall. In consequence of 
what then occurred I wrote to Professor Tyndall, and said that with regard 
to this point I was thoroughly satisfied that his experiments had not only 
been admirably conducted, but had led to very conclusive results with regard 
to the question of spontaneous generation. I would only say further that I 
think the geological argument is as perfect as any part of Mr. Hassell’s paper. 
Mr. C. Pfoundes (Memb. K. Asiatic Soc.) : I think the opening 
sentence, and the concluding paragraph of Mr. Hassell’s paper, have 
very ably and admirably put before us thoughts well worthy of being placed 
on permanent record, and translated into many tongues for the benefit of 
young and old of all nations and creeds. Speaking as one of the general 
publjc rather than as a scientist — although I have taken some trouble in 
America, as well as in England and elsewhere, to ascertain what they have 
to say for the information of one who is altogether unbiassed by preconceived 
notions and theories — I think that the evolutionists are to be divided 
into two distinct classes. One of these is composed of the real men of 
science, who look for something they are in want of, and with whom the 
wish is frequently father to the thought, let their motives be ever so 
admirable ; the other consists of those lesser lights who would fain shine 
alongside the scientists with the same brilliancy — men who are mere seekers 
after reputation and fame, and who are well pleased if they can only gain 
notoriety. We must deal with these people exactly on their merits, having 
regard to their own statement of their own case. I, as an Orientalist, have 
been brought face to face with records of some of the ablest men of the olden 
time— the “ wise men of the East ” — and, from what I have there read, have 
been led to the belief that the evolutionists of the present day are inferior to 
U 2 
