310 
A Batra- 
ckomorpkic 
Theory of 
Man. 
have some intelligence, foresight, and inventive power, and 
some gradually increasing scientific and mathematical 
knowledge. Our Creator has infinitely more of all those 
things, and omnipotence besides. Therefore the creative 
theory assumes a God like men. 
If such nonsense wants making more evident by illustration, 
here is one : Frogs have some intelligence, foresight, locomo- 
tive power, and will and knowledge how to maintain them- 
selves and their species, to avoid certain dangers, and generally 
to gain the objects of their life. Therefore attributing those 
same powers in a much higher degree, with many others, to 
man, is a batrachomorphic theory of human nature. That is 
just as good logic as the other, and as the Spencerian philo- 
sophy of creation from beginning to end. It is no answer to 
say that there is no doubt about the existence of some human 
faculties of the same kind as those of many animals, and of 
others much higher, while the existence of a Creator with any 
faculties like ours, and superior ones, is doubted, and cannot 
be absolutely proved. Those who talk in this way ask us to 
accept their dictum as self-evident that a Creator cannot have 
such faculties, and pretend to help it by inventing an absurd 
nickname or two. Such arguing is not argument, but mere 
assumption. And if the old theory of a designed creation is 
only maintained “ in the pride of ignorance,” as Mr. Spencer 
says), I suppose the rejection of it for undesigned and 
“ unfathomable mysteries” of self- transforming forces and self- 
generated properties of matter, and of effects without causes, 
is the modesty of omniscience. 
I end by saying that I do not know, or know of, a single 
man of real scientific reputation or mathematical ability who 
has committed himself to any specific approval of Mr. Spencer’s 
“natural philosophy,” which he has himself explained his 
book of First Principles of Synthetic Philosophy to mean. 
General laudation of him as a great evolutionist by automatic 
cosmogony is good for nothing, and commits such admirers 
to nothing involving their own reputation. Too many of 
them have an evident reason for not choosing to expose his 
bad reasoning as I have done, though I dare say they could 
have done it better. Ignorant people naturally take for 
granted that his scientific reasoning is generally accepted by 
competent judges, whereas it is nothing of the kind. 
The Chairman (the Eight Hon. A. S. Ayrton) — I am sure we have 
all heard with the greatest pleasure the able paper just read. It is now 
left for the consideration of those present whose minds and studies have 
