119 
misuse of my words. Mr. Reddie says : “ I must exclude from my definition 
again using Mr. Warington’s words— 4 all mere transient sports or temporary 
variations,’ as well as 4 all apparent varieties dependent upon situation, climate, 
&c.’ ” I have had considerable difficulty in making out the meaning here, but 
as far as I can make it out* it is that we must exclude from the definition 
of the causes involved in Darwinism all mere transient sports or variations from 
climate. That is what I understand by Mr. Reddie’s remark. It is certainly 
not at all that which was conveyed by my words. I have simply said, because 
now and then a sport occurs in any species, introducing transient variation m 
some characteristic, that is no reason for regarding that characteristic as not 
specific ; but I never said you are to exclude such things from the definition 
of what Darwinism is. Now we have a most extraordinary way of dealing 
with Darwinism. We are told “ these may be Mr. Warington’s deductions 
from Mr. Darwin’s book or Mr. Darwin’s own views but hear what Dr. 
Louis Biichner says.” If any one else adopt Dr. Buchner’s theory, it is not 
Darwin. When Creation is denied in toto, that is Biichnerism, not Dar- 
winism. Dr. Louis Buchner, having extraordinary opinions as to what God 
is, comes to certain strange conclusions. Darwin has, so far as we know, no 
such opinions, and does not come to such conclusions 
The Chairman— The same conclusion arrived at by Biichner— that of the 
self-evolving powers of nature— was, I believe, used in Essays and Reviews, 
and has been accepted by Darwin as a philosophical interpretation of his 
theory. I believe Darwin has never repudiated this as being a fair deduction 
from his own theory. 
Mr. Warington. — I wish to quote Darwin from his own book, fourth 
edition, the last sentence : “ There is grandeur in this view of life, with 
its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a 
few forms or into one.”— (P. 577.) Does not that settle the matter that 
he holds to Creation ? The phrase still stands just as it did ; it has 
not been expunged, and there is no attempt to change or modify its 
force. Then Mr. Reddie says Darwinism 44 plus Deity ” may be possible. 
Now what is Mr. Reddie discussing ? Not Darwinism “pure and simple,” 
which is Darwinism and Deity ; but Darwinism minus Deity, which is 
* I think reference to my words (p. 74)^ will show that I am not there 
professing to define Darwinism in Mr. Warington’s language ; but that, 
having bond fide adopted his words, I am defending my own argument, where 
I admit the kind of effects Mr. Darwin lays stress upon, without admitting 
the extent to which he assumes they operate in nature, while he ignores those 
limits of Nature’s laws of which we have knowledge. I say, therefore, that 
if we 44 exclude all mere transient sports ” and 44 temporary variations, &c., we 
are then restricted to 44 characteristics ” (or 44 characteristic differences, which 
I consider precisely the same in meaning), which are 44 constant and inherent 
at the present time and if constant and inherent now , so we must conclude 
they were 44 in the past and if so, that this is contrary to the whole theory 
of Darwinian modifications or changes, and 44 the origin of species. 1 hope 
this explanation will make my argument quite free from misunderstanding. 
— J. R. 
