PROCEEDINGS OP THE PERTHSHIRE SOCIETY OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 
147 
the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and 
from use and disuse; a ratio of increase so high as to lead 
to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to natural 
selections, entailing divergence of character and the ex¬ 
tinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of 
nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object 
which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the produc¬ 
tion of the higher animals, directly follows. 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; and that, whilst this planet has gone 
cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so 
simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most 
wonderful, have been, and are being, evolved.” Such is 
Darwin’s own summary of his views. The theory has to 
do with the way in which life has been developed in its 
endless varieties and stages, not with the way in which 
life originated. Life in its lowest form exists before the 
Darwinian theory comes into play. It is not necessary in 
this theory to regard life as having existed at first only in 
one form. Darwin speaks on this point with an amount 
of modesty and caution which is sadly lacking in some of 
his followers. He says:—“I believe that animals are 
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and 
plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would 
lead me one step farther—namely, to the belief that all 
animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. 
But analogy may be a deceitful guide.” This view has 
been vigorously opposed by some scientists, by some 
theologians, and by some poets and general writers. 
Scientists declare that the evidence is as yet altogether 
insufficient to warrant such sweeping conclusions; the 
opposition by theologians has been mainly directed against 
the conclusions in morality and religion to which they 
think such a view would lead; while the general writer 
chiefly holds up to ridicule the alleged descent of man 
from his immediate predecessor, the ape. Still, in a 
popular assembly, an allusion to the monkey and a ques¬ 
tion as to what has become of the monkey’s tail, are suffi¬ 
cient to produce roars of laughter, and an impression on 
the minds of the majority that the theory is a piece of 
absurdity. Of the poets we may take Browning’s descrip¬ 
tion. England has no greater poet — and in “ Prince 
Hohenstiel Schwangau,” he gives us the descent of man as 
follows:— 
That mass man sprang from was a jelly lump 
Once on a time; he kept an after course 
Through fish and insect, reptile, bird, and beast, 
Till he attained to be an ape at last, 
Or last but one. 
The course pursued here in the process of development 
from protoplasm to monkey, is slightly erratic. The 
creature who passed through these successive stages of 
existence must, like Neil Gow once on a time, have been 
much more bothered with the breadth of the road than 
with the length of it; but still though the course is a little 
zigzag, the starting-point, the jelly, is quite correct, and 
so also is, in a certain sense, the penultimate stage, 
the ape, from which the man emerges. But between 
stating and ridiculing that theory and showing its fal¬ 
sity, there is a terribly wide and essential differ¬ 
ence. MaDy scientific truths now universally accepted 
were, when first introduced, regarded by the vast 
majority as being outrageously absurd. To ridicule a 
theory is not to disprove it. On the other hand, there is 
not unfrequently on the part of the supporters of evolution 
undue confidence of assertion, and intolerance of any views 
opposed to them. They are quite sure that they are right, 
and consequently, if others differ from them, they who 
differ must be wrong. They forget that evolution is only 
a theory, which cannot yet be said to be absolutely proved. 
Mr DarwiD himself, with characteristic candour and mo¬ 
desty of assertion, states the objections and difficulties 
which may be justly urged against his theory, and acknow¬ 
ledges that he himself felt their weight. All that he 
claims is that “ they are by no means sufficient to over¬ 
throw the theory of descent with subsequent modifica¬ 
tions.” This modesty of statement disappears in some of 
his followers, who are characterised by strong dogmatism, 
assumption of infallibility on this point, and utter in¬ 
tolerance of divergence of opinion. These characteristics 
are not found in the best scientists, and should not be 
found in any. At the most evolution is only a very pro¬ 
bable theory. Agassiz, one of the most eminent natura¬ 
lists, rejected it as unfounded; and though it finds accept¬ 
ance at present with most naturalists, it is accepted 
because, in their opinion, it accounts better for the facts 
than any other hypothesis or theory. But still this pre¬ 
ference is provisional. It is acknowledged that fhe 
theory has difficulties which are yet unsolved. It is not 
improbable, at least it is quite possible, that subsequent 
investigations may reveal facts which may greatly modify 
or even supplant it. What is the position to be adopted? 
Moderation on both sides—it is at best only a theory very 
probable, but not yet absolutely demonstrated. Toler, 
ance on both sides—neither may have yet arrived at 
truth; and on neither side should there be an assumption of 
knowledge which is not possessed. Respecting what 
the theory professes to explain, a vast amount of 
evil speaking on both sides might have been 
