284 
which Mr. Darwin brings forward in aid of his theory, yon will come to 
this conclusion, that the more these facts are analyzed and sifted, the more 
they are found not to accord with what we know of the whole facts of nature, 
but the very reverse. And I would adduce as a proof of this, that Mr. Darwin, 
after all his efforts, finds that his doctrine of evolution will not accord with 
the facts of nature ; and he has therefore introduced a new hypothesis, which 
most essentially denies his previous doctrine of evolution altogether. One of 
the most difficult facts which he had to account for by his system, was the 
constant tendency, however much man might endeavour to check it by cultiva- 
tion or by any other means, the constant tendency, on the part of the living 
being experimented upon, to recur to some peculiarities of its ancestors. He has 
endeavoured to get over that difficulty, by saying that no new organ whatever 
can make its appearance, unless it arises from a gemmule which was already 
in existence in the first progenitor of all those forms. Take the eye, with all 
its marvellous adaptation. How is that reproduced and transmitted from one 
individual to another ? Why, according to the new theory of pangenesis, 
for every portion of that eye, whether we take the vitreous humour, the 
crystalline lens, or the aqueous humour, or indeed any other part of it, there 
must have been some hypothetical minute gemmules or particles in the 
immediate predecessor of the being which possessed that eye ; and none of 
those parts or organs could be produced of themselves by any means, unless 
there had been antecedent gemmules having the power to produce them. 
But carry that back, and take your doctrine of evolution straight from your 
original monad — that original extraordinary thing in which Mr. Darwin would 
say life was first apparent — take it in its most simple form ; and according 
to Darwin’s own theory that original monad must have contained in itself all 
the gemmules of all the creatures that have ever been produced from it. You 
do not, therefore, go back to a system of evolution, but to the creation, in 
which that monad was a cosmos in itself, with all the germs of all its suc- 
cessors contained in it ! And that is Darwin’s own idea ; because he tells 
you that the reproducing of an organ, or of some appearance in an organ, 
which can be traced to an ancestor 50, 100, or 1,000 times removed, is a. 
proof that it comes from gemmules previously existing. He has then to 
account for undeveloped gemmules passing through successive generations ; 
but he proves nothing, and he is obliged to supplement his first doctrine by 
what practically denies the whole doctrine of evolution. Now I do not find 
that Mr. Henslow has really adduced any facts whatever in support of the 
theory of evolution, except the appearance of certain rudimentary organs, 
with the assumption that these rudimentary organs can only be accounted for 
on the principle of evolution. I take it for granted that, — with the exception 
of that amount of evolution spoken of by Mr. Reddie, — the whole of this 
doctrine of evolution is contrary to the plain statement of Scripture. I do 
not see how you are to take the plain statement of man’s creation, and then 
to go to a theory of evolution which would make man only an improved ape. 
I do not see how these two doctrines can be at all reconciled. But now we 
come to another point, and that is, whether this theory of evolution really 
