76 
in Lucretius, though it takes a somewhat different shape ; but this notion of 
gemmules being thrown off from living beings, appears to have been put 
forward by Mr. Darwin to cover his retreat from some of his earlier views as 
to development. At the same time, we have also Professor Huxley now 
putting forward the theory of “protoplasm,” which is worse than the theory 
of gemmules. I confess I cannot understand how rational beings can gravely 
put forward such mere rubbish, in the name of science. Grant that these 
imaginary gemmules exist and are the cause of all the varieties in life ; and 
of course it follows that all is explained ! And so, grant that the poisonous 
protoplasm of the nettle is the same with the substance of all life and 
health, and then of course “ protoplasm ” explains all ! But when we ask 
for proof of either, there is none. These are modern instances, in fact, of 
the most objectionable form of mere idle speculation and of non-inductive 
philosophy. 
The Chairman. — It now only remains for me to express my general 
concurrence with the whole argument of this admirable paper, with the 
exception, perhaps, of the argument on life. So far as the general scope 
of the paper is concerned, nothing could have been more admirable 
or convincing. A more logical paper could not have been written to 
expose the absurdity of Darwin’s two theories, and to show how utterly 
impossible it is, by any logical process whatever, to reconcile them. 
That, then, must be a sufficient excuse for our now reconsidering the 
subject of Darwinism, for since our first two papers on the subject were 
read and discussed here, Mr. Darwin has set forth his new theory of 
pangenesis. It is only right that that new theory should be met and 
argued upon, and that it should be shown how utterly irreconcilable it is 
with his first theory. Illogical and untenable as his first theory was, he has 
now utterly destroyed it by the succeeding theory which he puts forward to 
bolster it up. We are often told that no scientific man believes anything but 
this, or that no scientific man believes anything but that, and that scientific 
men do not believe in the history of creation as set forth in the beginning of 
Genesis. But here we have a convincing proof that scientific men as eminent, 
and naturalists as eminent, in every degree as Mr. Darwin himself are 
altogether at issue with his theories of creation, and that entirely upon 
scientific grounds, I think Professor Kirk has done well in coming in as a 
moderator between Agassiz, who is an eminent naturalist, as eminent as 
Darwin, and Mr. Darwin. He shows you that, with all their philosophy 
and all their science, they have not been able to make a single step in advance 
of the science which is to be found in the very early chapters of the book of 
Genesis, which we have lately been told were nothing more than the imagin- 
ings of a Hebrew Descartes. I think Professor Kirk’s passages with regard 
to life are important, because they have a bearing on what has been put 
forward by Professor Huxley on the same subject. The peculiar notion 
which Professor Kirk seems to have of life is that it is essentially motion, 
and nothing but motion. He says : — 
