68 
something like this will also be the case when Mr. Darwin’s 
maqnum opus makes its appearance. 
But tkese analogies as to tlie history merely of these two 
theories, however close, are of less consequence than the ana- 
logy that obtains respecting the groundwork and basis of the 
theories. “Is gravitation [Mr. Warington asks] a rea/ cause 
capable by its action of controlling planetary motion ? t. e., is 
the hypothesis possible ? 99 And so, he also asks, Is Mr. 
Darwin's hypothesis possible ? — Are the elements involved in 
it real elements capable of producing the kind of effects he 
ascribes to them ? 99 I am sure, he will see, that I am 
(frying his argument every possible advantage in thus keeping 
ft constantly in juxtaposition with his chosen instance and 
the most popular science of modern times. And I will admit 
that just as we all know that a stone or an apple falls to the 
ground by its weight, and that therefore, so far, “ gravitation 
is a real cause ; 99 so we are all positively quite aware that 
“ the kind of effects" Mr. Darwin lays stress upon, are cer- 
tainly produced by climate, use and disuse, by growth with 
reproduction and inheritance, and by the external conditions ot 
life and the consequent struggles for existence among plants 
and animals. I never heard of a man that denied an apple 
would fall to the ground; and I cannot conceive how those 
who believe in the unity of the human species can possibly 
deny against the evidence of their own eyes, that mankind at 
least have diverged and developed marvellously in all directions 
away from the original type of Adam and Eve, whatever we 
may consider their type to have been. But it is one thing to ad- 
mit that an apple falls, and another to conclude that the moon, 
which does not fall, is under the same influence. So, it is one 
thing to admit that all mankind have descended from a com- 
mon stock, and quite another therefore to conclude that man 
has descended from the same common stock as goats and 
monkeys. But, now, it is here that the analogy halts. Granted 
the first and second laws of motion, as propounded by Stevinus 
and accepted in the Principia, and granted that gravitation is 
a constant force ; it is perfectly possible— and I think per- 
fectly easy — to demonstrate whether or not a gravitating body 
could revolve round a centre of attraction without ever falling 
— that is, to prove or disprove the possibility of gravitation as 
a real cause capable of controlling planetary motion but I 
am not aware of any attempt to do this by Sir Isaac Kewton 
or any of his followers. I say the possibility of universal 
gravitation might thus be tested by mathematical demonstra- 
tion ; but I do not in the least see how Darwinism ever can 
be. ’ It would be unreasonable to require that it should be 
