215 
he did not come from the ape, I hold that the whole theory of Evolution, as 
far as man is concerned, breaks down.* 
Mr. W. P. James. — I should be very glad to hear Professor Stokes 
give his opinion on the subject of Natural Selection, which, I think, 
has hardly been touched upon this evening. The term “ evolution ” is, in 
itself, extremely vague, and simply means that the higher forms of life 
have been derived by generation or otherwise from the lower forms. 
It is clear that there may be many forms of evolution, some of which would 
be entirely in accord with Theism. On the other hand, an extreme form, 
such as that upheld by Haeckel, may be a thin disguise for Atheism, 
although he prefers to call it Monism. But the form which is associated 
with the name of Darwin rests entirely on Natural Selection. Darwin’s 
theory of Natural Selection is, in fact, his great point. When he is asked, 
“How did the higher forms of life arise from the lower ? ” his answer is 
that they were produced by Natural Selection, a theory so well known that I 
need not describe what he means by it. I should be much pleased to hear 
Professor Stokes give his opinion on this subject a little more at length. 
It is now apparent that many persons who believe in some kind of evolution 
are beginning to venture to say that Natural Selection is not enough to 
account for all the phenomena of animated nature. It requires some courage 
for any one to do this in the scientific world, where, for a long time — fully 
twenty years — the theory of Natural Selection has held more or less undis- 
puted sway. But, I rather think, we can now trace a reaction against it 
among our scientific men. (Hear, hear.) Professor Mivart may be men- 
tioned as an illustrious example among those zoologists who have been bold 
enough to say that in their opinion Natural Selection does not suffice to 
account for the development of the higher forms of life from the lower. 
This is the central point of Darwin’s theory, and, if this breaks down, his 
doctrine of evolution necessarily goes with it; it is abolished and done 
away with, though not necessarily other forms of the doctrine. Few con- 
demn evolution pure and simple. I am rather inclined to think that a 
true answer to the question, “How is it that the higher forms of life have 
succeeded the lower ones in past times ? ” is to be found in some theory 
of evolution. Natural Selection, however, alone is Darwin’s theory. W e 
* “ We cannot pronounce it to be a conquest of science that man descends 
from the ape or from any other animal. We can only indicate it as an 
hypothesis, however probable it may seem. Let us hope the men of science 
in England will not fail to examine this most serious question — whether the 
authority of science will not be better served if it confines itself strictly to 
its own province, than if it undertakes to master the whole view of nature by 
the premature generalisation of theoretical combinations. We must really 
acknowledge that there is a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower 
stage in the development of man. I am bound to declare that any positive 
advance which has been made in the province of pre-historic anthropology 
has actually removed us further from the proof of such connection — namely, 
with the rest of the animal kingdom .” — Professor Virchow . — (Ed.) 
