New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-08-31
empirical laws together by the principle of gravta-

The doctrine of atoms had to all appearance van
ished during the Middle Ages, and it sumbered till
the nth century, when ii was revived by Gassendi
the bold ecclesiastic who, without mourning the
ceusure of the Church or the world contrived, says
Prof. Tyndall, to outstrip Mr.. Darwin, and to
enumerate substantially the same doctrine as that
expressed by Prof Clerk Maxwell "at the close of
the very noble lecture delivered by him at Bradford
last year."
The atomic doctrine, in whole part. enter
tanned by Bacon, Descartes, Hobbs, Locke, Newton,
Boyle and their successors, until the chemical law of
multiple proportions enabled Dalton to confer upon it
an entirely significance. In our day there are
secessons from the theory but 1t still stands firm Only
year two ago Sir William Thomson, with eharac-
erc penetration, sought to determine the sizes OF tho
atoms rather TO fix the limits between which their
sizes e while only last year the disconrses Of william
and Maxwell illustrate the present hold OF the doc
trine upon the foremost scientific minds
The interesting discussion of the doctrine Of
bodily instruments which follows, with its captally
managed tilt between Bishop Butler and Lucretius,
1 must pass over wholly. 1t will scarcely bear
abridgment and it is too long to quote. The
strength and weakness of the atomic theory have
seldom been put in stronger light. But select one
passage simply because it again illustrates the spirit
which animates the whole of this discourse! The
Bishop is supposed to speak:
You and are not likely indulge in il-temper in the
discussion of these great topics where we see much
room for honest differences of opinion But there are
III
humility on both Sides who are ever ready to minge
anger and viuperation with such discussions. There
present day who not ashamed TO assume the deep
personal sin" OF great ogcian TO be the cause OF bis
unDellef In the0ogc dogma. Ana tnere are Others
who hold that we who cherish noble Bible, wrought
1t has been into the constitution OF our forefather
critical and insincere Let disavow aud dscounte-
people, cherishing the answering fath that
what good and in both arguments Will be pre-
served for benefit of humanity, while all that is bad
or false will disappear
We pass now to the period when the science of
geology was created, by which the public mind was
rendered gradually tolerant of the idea that not
for six thousand, not for sixty thousand not for
six hundred thousand. but for aeons embracing un-
told millions of years, this earth has been the
theater of life and DEATH"
when they first preached these verties of science
found loud-tongued denuncators who proclaimed not
their immortality considered questions OF ethics ana
religion the Book of Genesis had stated the question
in different fashion, and science must necessarily 40
TO pieces when 1t cashed with this authority Ana as
the seed of the thistle produces thistle and nothing
else so these directors scatter their germs abroad ana
reproduce their kind ready To play again the part OF
their intellectual progeniors, to show the same vru
lence the same Ignorance, to achieve Tor time the
same success and finally TO suffer the same neXorable
Surely the time must come at last when human
nature In entirety whose legitimate demands 10 is
admitted science alone cannot satisfy viii ind nterpre
and expositors OF different stamp from those rsn
and persons who have been hitherto SO ready
TO hurl themselves against every new sclentc reveal
ton, lest 1t should endanger what they are picased 10
consider theirs
The discoveries of petrifed forms of life once
active of the fact that the simplest fogms lie lowest
down and that the more perfect forms always occur
in the superimposed strata raised the question how
each new group of organisms was to be accounted
for The great majority of naturalists invoked a
speclal creative act for each" an attempt by the
introduction of greater difficulty to account for a
less" A few men led the way to different views.
De Maillet. cotemDorary of Newton, had notion,
as Huxley pointed out of the modifabity of living
forms. AS early as 1904, Charles Darwin's grand
father was the pioneer of Charles Darwin. In 1901
Lamarck endeavored to show the development of
species out of changes of habit and external con-
dition. In 1918 DR.. Wells read paper before the
ROYAL Society in which, as Mr.. Darwin himself
saws he distinctly recognized the principle OF nat
ural selection, the first recognition that has been
indicated Others followed with views more or less
clear till finally, in 1858. Mr.. Darwin and Mr. Wal
lace simultaneously but independently placed their
closely concurrent views upon the subject before
the Linnean Society" In the following year, Oar
win startled by finding Wallace on his track, pub
lshed the Origin of Species" the fruit of twO-and
twenty years of experiment and profound thought.
OF this book and of what followed Oh its appearance
Prof. Tyndall thus speaks:
The book was by no easy one: and probably
not every OF those VINO then attacked had
read its pages through. or were competent to grasp
10 dscredlt tnem for there were In those days some
really eminent scientific men, entirely raised above the
heat OF popular prejudice, willing TO accept any con-
oson that had TO offer, provided IT was duly
backed by fact and argument and who entirely nstook
Mr. DarWins views. In fact the work needed an
nounder; and 1t found in Mr.. Huxley. l know
nothing admirable IN the way of scientific exposi
ron than those early articles OF his on the origin Of
snecles He swept the OF discussion through the
really significant points of the subject, enriched his
nv, nVlHp Ia ion
nften summing up in single pithy sentence argu-
ment which less compact mind would have spread
book itself which no exposition of it, however lum
convey and that Is the OF the vast
amount of labor both OF observation ana OF Thought
implied in its production.
A summary of its principles follows, and for this
again must refer the reader TO the address ITSELF
but quote the very striking paragraph in which
Prof Tyndall expresses his estimate of Darwin and
his work. with its interesting anecdote of Agassiz:
Mr. Darwin shrks no difficulty; and, saturated as the
subject was with his own thought, he must have
known better than his critics. the weakness well
the strengh Of his theory This OF course, would be of
little avail his object temporary dlalectic vic
torv instead of the establishment OF truth which he
means TO be everlasting But he takes no pains to
disguise the weakness he has dscerned nay he takes
everyipans to bring it into the strongest light His vast
resources enable him TO with objections started
by himself and others, so as to leave the final impress
sion upon the readers mind that, If they be not
pleIely answered, they certainly are not fatal Their
negative force being thus destroyed are free to
he Influenced by the vast positive mass Of evidence he
is able to bring before you. This largeness OF knowl
and readiness OF resource render Mr. Darwin the
most terrible OF antagonists. Accomplished naturalists
have leyeled heavy and sustained criticisms against him
not always with the view of fairly weighing his the
ory but with the express intention OF exposing its weak
noints only This does rrtate him. He treats every
pbiectt0n with soberness and thoroughness which
Bishop Butler might be proud TO initiate surrounding
each fact with its appropriate detail placing 1t In its
nroper relations and usually giving 1t significance
which, as long as IT kept isolated, failed TO appear
This is done without trace of ill-temper He moves
over the subject with the passionless strength of ga
cier aud the grinding of the rocks is not always with
ont counterpart in the logical puverization OF the
ohiector But, though handling this mighty theme
ali passion been sted there an emotion OF the
Intellect incident the discernment OF new
trnth which often colors and warns the pages
of Mr. Darwin His success has been great !;
and this implies not only the solidity OF his work
bnt the preparedness OF the public mind for such
atiop On this head a remark OF Agassiz impressed me