217 
plant and the beak of the snipe have become what they are through an 
intellectual and reasoning process, so that in each case the plant and the 
bird possess the power of thought ? Did the pitcher-plant become what it 
is because it was able to procure some benefit by altering its form, and, 
if so, is not this tantamount to the power of reasoning ? Again, is not the 
development noticed in the formation of the parrot’s bill traceable 
through the action of the creature itself to a discriminating intelligence ? 
But, if this be not the case, can we do otherwise than say that these things 
have been brought about by a power outside the plant and the animal, to 
which we give the name of God ? For my part I cannot asseut to the 
proposition that the results we thus witness can possibly have proceeded from 
aught but the great First Cause — from God the Creator of all things. (Hear, 
hear.) If I am in the wrong, I beg that I may be put right. 
The Chairman. — As our time is now almost expired, I will, unless any- 
one else desires to address the meeting, call on Professor Stokes to make his 
reply ; but, before doing so, I will venture to say a few words. First of all, I 
offer my humble tribute of admiration to the paper with which Professor 
Stokes has favoured us. I have admired it throughout, and, as far as I 
understand the subject, I agree with it throughout. I especially liked that 
portion of it in which he dealt with the doctrine of evolution, which is the 
latest product of scientific investigation, and, I suppose I may add, the latest 
emanation from the mind of the great man who has recently departed from 
among us. I have heard it said, and I cannot deny that there is truth in 
the remark, that there has been among scientific men, as I am sure there has 
been among others, a great deal of dogmatism and intolerance, as well as of 
very hard speaking upon this subject, which have not been at all germane to 
the matter. But I think I may defy any one to say that this was the case 
with the illustrious man to whom I have just referred. If ever there were a 
humble, patient, and persevering investigator, and seeker after the truths of 
science — and the truths of science are the truths of all things— for there is 
no other truth — I believe Darwin to have been that man. (Hear, hear.) I 
cannot tell whether his theory of evolution be true or not — time will prove 
that — but I know that all the scientific discoveries that have been made 
have met with opposition as they have appeared. One’s mind naturally 
reverts to the time when Galileo was tortured for declaring that the earth 
went round the sun ; and the same fact might be illustrated in many other 
ways. We might go back even to a much earlier period, and recall the 
words used by a certain Doctor of the Law, when he said — “ Kefrain from 
these men and let them alone ; for if this counsel, or this work, be of men it 
will come to naught ; but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it.” I would 
always, and gladly, take the opportunity of saying how much we are in- 
debted to the scientific men of the present day. I have no sympathy with 
those who decry them, and call them hard names. Among the men of 
science of our day there are many who are as hard-working, as good, as 
honest, and as truthful as are to be found in any other sphere of life ; and 
we are infinitely indebted to them for the knowledge they have given us of 
