21 
level, and to bring both to the same common tests of reason, pro- 
bability, analogy, and fact. Fiat justitia, mat coelum ! One may 
say this, as I do, with all reverence, without any apprehension that 
either the sky will fall, or that heavenly truth is in the least danger. 
34. Darwinism, then, or “ the law of natural selection/' appears 
to me, ab initio , to be out of joint and at issue with all nature. It 
begins, merely with the things that have life, — unlike the more 
thorough evolution theories of the ancients, who began the world 
itself with an egg. Sir John Lubbock says it is “ the only theory 
that accounts for the origin of man " ; but man, as well as all other 
living beings, animal or vegetable, depend upon inanimate things 
for their subsistence ; and unless our theory can account for the 
origin of all things it is valueless. Mr. Darwin speaks of “ this 
planet cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity," whilst 
“ endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and 
are being evolved." But what as to the origin of this “ fixed law of 
gravity," and of “ this planet " itself, and of the air, and water, earth 
and fire, — taking either this ancient rude division of the elements, 
or their sixty-four chemical constituents, as discovered in modern 
times, — Are they evolved— fire from air, air from water, water from 
earth, or vice versa, or either from gravity ? Or is carbon evolved 
from hydrogen, hydrogen from oxygen, oxygen from nitrogen, and 
so on through all the gaseous elements of the world ? If not, — 
and what chemist or natural philosopher but would laugh at such 
an idea of the constitution of natural things ; — if each of these 
elements has its nature or distinctive character, and measure and 
weight, — Is it natural or rational d priori to imagine, when we 
come to living beings, that they have a heterogeneous constitu- 
tion, different from that of the other things by which they are 
actually nourished and kept alive ? — that originally they all were 
muddled into one, and have evolved themselves into their 
present distinctive characteristics ? 
35. As rational and reasoning beings we must reject this, as at 
least d 'priori utterly improbable. But, of course, if we have 
d posteriori proof to the contrary, we shall be quite prepared to re- 
consider the matter. At present, however, the whole Darwinian 
theory, as the analogous theory of Lucretius was, is merely an 
d priori and unproved hypothesis ; and so far, the d priori argu- 
ment is against evolution. It is not even alleged by those who 
hold this theory, that gravitation, electricity, light, heat, cold, gases, 
air, water, earths or metals, were probably evolved one out of 
another. Only animals and plants ! and not even them out of 
pre-existing elements, without the first breathing of life “by the 
Creator into a few forms or into one."* I am aware this passage 
has been removed from its place in the first edition of The Origin 
* Darwin, Origin of Species (1st ed.), p. 525. 
