The Portland daily press., 1871-04-26
DAILY PRESS,
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1871.
Ane Latest Contributions 10 the DeyeIeu-
ment TheOrY.
PORTLAND

| ment Theory.
~, i' Darwins new work on the Descent of
nun waited many months in the hands OF
c,o.a @ nnsnsh n publishers, we are told, for the
,h. " the Franco-Prussian war. in order
'ne puoilc mind might not be diverted
nun ewing 1t the attention II. imnort.nca
demanos. That precaution might hs naoss ~
sary In England, but we do not be,isva a..
ID. Appleton d Co., the authors Amo,,o..'
publishers, would have found il necs,..r,,
here. There is among the more intellloen,
reading people on this side of the Atlantic =
marked tendency toward the perusal of works
containing the results of the latest investiaa-
lions OF the physical philosophers and bIolo-
gists Huxley, Tyndall Tyel and especially
Darwin share the popularity of the novelists
In our circulating libraries. Those who are
curious in such matters may find 1t interest
ing TO observe that in our own public library
the copy of Darwin's Origin of Species Is as
worn, soiled aud dog-eared as the most popu-
lar works of fiction.
Darwin's great popularity not only insures
large sale for his own works, which he keeps
within very reasonable bounds, but gives cnr-
rency to the efforts of his multitude Of disci.
pies, commentators and opponents. st.
George Mivart, whose Genesis of Species has
lately been republished by d. Appleton
Co., will probably be counted In The last
category, but the author of this acute
treatise does not 90 farther than
10 discredit the pure Darwinian hypoth-
esls. while he Is as earnest supporter of the
development theory as Mr.. Huxley or Mr..
wallace. He shows by course of reason
ing SO ingenious as to establish his position
as close thinker and a forcible writer that
tnere are large number of facts In relation
10 the development of species from nreex,st.
lug 'orms that cannot be accounted for by
natural selection" the struggle for lifen and
the survival OF the strongest" which have
much efficacy in Darwin's scheme. For in
stance, Mr.. Miyart finds it impossible to ac-
count by natural selection for the preserva-
tion and transmission to offspring of incipi.
eni useiui structures. At that stage such
structures arefunctionless and useless. giving
their possessors no superiority oser the rest of
their class and no advantage in "the struggle
for iife." ne finds that the hypothesis of
Darwin is also deficient in its ability to ar
count for the co-existence of closely similar
structures of diverse origin, for the sudden de-
Velopmeut of specific differences, for the def.
mite limits to the variability of species, for the
absence OF transitional fossil forms, for the
facts OF geographical distribution, &c. On
the whole this work Is perhaps the one of all
others that best deserves attention and refu-
tation at the hands of the upholders Of natur-
al selection.
The two volumes of Darwin's Descent of
Man with Mr.. Mivart's one volume TO which
we have just referred, give the intelligent
ca der clear notion of what may be said In
uppoft or In criticism of a scientific theory
tnat hardly had an existence ten years AGO
when the world was startled BY the publica.
tion Ut the Origin of Species, and which Is
now almost as well established as the Copper
nican theory OF the universe. The idle con-
lecture that the development theory gives
man the ape Tor an ancestor still gives great
opportunity for humorists to ply their voca.
ton, but it has long since ceased to be regard
ed with levity by scientific men.
Among the most remarkable changes that
have taken place with reference to the devel-
opment theory since 1t was first broached Is
In the attitude of the religious world toward
II. The crude notion that the overthrow of
Deity is involved in the discovery that his
method of operation is different from what
was formerly supposed is well night obsolete.
so distinguished churchman as Charles
Kingsley, better known as the author OF Az
ton Locke than as "Csnon Kingsley" has re-
Gently given public utterance to his acknowl.
edgement of the futility of religious opposi-
tion to scientific doctrines that do not neces-
sarily initiate against the doemas OF the
church or the truths of the natural or reveal
ed religion. In this he but follows the EXAM
pie OF the great mass of the clergy who have
BY ignoring the system given a tacit assent to
its theological soundpess.