161 
question discussed by all parties — both by those who wish to make out the 
skull to be pithecoid and the reverse,— and I have never heard Dr. Barnard 
Davis’s conclusions once questioned. We have some gentlemen now present, 
capable of giving an opinion, if they will be kind enough to do so ; but I do 
not think there is anything in the Neanderthal skull to lead us to expect that 
there ever was a race of people settled in the world who had skulls anything 
like it. 
Dr. Thornton. — I never imagined the skull to be the representative of a 
race, but an individual distortion. The race settled in that part of the world 
in early times, I conceive to have been Fin ; but it is not necessary to enter 
on that subject now. 
Mr. Reddie. — I am glad to have elicited this explanation, which I see is 
quite consistent with what the paper says. I believe one of Dr. Davis’s 
abnormal skulls is that of an Irishman — a Celt ; and I suppose no one race 
is more subject to synostosis than another. 
Mr. Warington. — I confess I am somewhat sorry for the title of the 
paper, though as regards its matter I should agree with it very well. The 
impression which that title is likely to convey, and which I suppose it was 
meant to convey, is that there is a peculiar lack of logic in sceptical objec- 
tions. I am quite aware there is a lack of logic ; the only thing I question 
is its peculiarity. When we look around and observe the way in which men 
of science, or indeed men generally, are in the habit of drawing conclusions, 
we that in cases where theological prejudice has not the slightest influence, 
they are so perpetually falling into the very same logical errors, that it is 
plainly unjust to them to suppose that when they do so in opposition to 
Scripture, it arises from any peculiarity of the position in which they are 
placed, or of the object which they have in view. I am quite aware that in 
the substance of the paper Dr. Thornton has not expressed himself at all 
strongly in this way. But it strikes me that in speaking, not of the fallacies 
of scientiflc origin, but of the logic of scepticism, the impression is given that 
these fallacies are in some way characteristic of sceptical objections, and are 
not to be found elsewhere. To remove that impression I would briefly point 
out a few cases in which there are similar errors observable on the other side. 
There is another kind of scepticism as injurious at times, or even more so, 
than that of which w r e have heard to night : viz., theological scepticism in 
regard to science ; a scepticism which has certainly done a good deal to cause 
the breach at present existing between Scripture and Science. On purely 
theological grounds, men have been sceptical of science, and in being so have 
fallen into the same fallacies of argument as men of science on the other side. 
I will not go through all the paper, but I will take one or two instances by 
wa y example. First, as to the argument from authority, that A. B. says 
such and such a thing is true, and therefore it is true. Well, Dr. Thornton 
has himself hinted that the thing is done over and over again by theologians 
also, v ho, when an assertion on the side of Scripture is questioned, do not 
trouble to go themselves and find out whether this statement is really a state- 
ment of Scripture or not, but say, “ Oh ! Dr. A. B. says so ; do you object to 
