, 1875-07-04

merable evolutlons upon which they reckon.
Pretending to depend wholly upon reason, they
aak Us, here, to baniah our reason.
second strong objection is. that crossing two
species produces = hybrid which Is STERILE A
mule is a case in point. This Is a
general rule. Hybridism and sterility are
almost Synonymous terms. Thus the pro-
cess Of natural selection, through one
Of its most potent agencies sexual selection,
would preysnt, instead Of producing, permanent
new types The hybrid forms would be unsble
to perpetuate themselves, and would necessarily
die ont. The Darwinian answer to this ia that
crossing rarieties does not produce serility, and
that the difference between udrieties and species
has been exaggerated. But this ia begging tho
question. Darwinsm fails to account for the
origin Of species. although it may explain, and
probably does, the origin Of many varieties. The
'Survival Of the Fitteat will produce new va-
riety. but neyer. it seems, q new species.
Once more, the theory Of Natural Selection
fails to account for inoipiept organs. Mr..
Drury says: "Many organs can only be useful
wien fully developed. In their incipient stages
they must have been not only useless, but posi-
lively disadvantageous and hence could not
have been developed through survival Of the
fttest." And finally this theory is an insufi-
cient ctew to the human mind. indeed. upon this
point, Mr. Darwin's failure ia acknowledged.
He does not pretend to psychological knowl-
edge, and hence proved incompetent to deal
with this question. Minor points. such as the
instinct OF animals, the great conple1ity Of the
eye, ETC.. might be made, but the reasons already
advanced are sufficient. \
There II further point IN tho argument, fully pre-
tai A%76 Viii
facts by the Duke Of Argyle, in hia Reign Of Law
which must not be passed unnodced- If 1t be es:ao-
is iu it's tavor, far It 10 presumption against
theory with which it ts Inconsistent refer TO the
posulstc that certain forms, colors, and features in
rcr1<tV as their na4 eauxe. Thiz is natural and sup
poaabe an intelligent First Gauss has originated,
either Se s .ns danisd
by Darwin, on tho theory that things have attalned
telr present fors BY the preservation Of pu=t'H ss
lions for bsautys or yarietys sake This sureiv ia
opposed to very nv :: tat u moro Aaily o1plic4olo
On theory which finds ra pose and design In tho
plumags Of the fcathered FAces.
That there are many r-markab]o phenomena IN Or
0anic forms upon which "Natural Selection throws
no light whcteyor; but the explanations of which. II
they could be attained, might throw Light upon spe"
cifo organization.
but that it viii eventually b condemned ~ unscten"
tidc Unless j: adduce stronger arguments than
vet brought fOrN2ru-uDlea3 II can oettaF AusW6T
the many fatal objections brought against It, In
deed by leading scientists It is ,rua1y condemned.
The lxmented Agusstz, than whom no one was
better authority on living extinct forms OF life,
e:outed Is u mors assumption. In his course Ut
lectures before tha Museum Of Comparative Zoology
ut Cambridge On "The Natural Foundations Of
Geological Af}nity" be affirmed In direct antagonism
to Darwin and his school, that "the Law Of inherit
auce seems intended to p7e&eTre, not to dlrerx9V
types 10 active only far os to produce froshnsss
but never 80 a. to impair original patterns or noZms."
Reseuting the attempts Of trxnsnutatoniats to use
his name and labors to support their theory, be
branded their views based }dnc1ed identity o.
phenomena, which, fur we know, have not. and.
in the nature Of things cannot have any material con
nec:ion and upon only part1at presentation Of the
facts The spondences between the different a.
rects Of znimal ufs which Dlrwinista build thrlr
theory he Viewed the correspondence Of connected
rlan and not Of mechanical evolution. Hence he held
that this world Of Ia not tho result Of the actQn
Of unconscious organic forces, but the work Of N ia
tel1:eent conscious power "a conclusion d2me1c-
ally opposite to Darw1ns, and from ~ competent an
observer aud student OF nature. Equally have ths
French sayants of the Academy pronounced Darwin
ism unkcicntiac, and refused to Darwin mem moershp
in the Academy Of Sciences by vote Of 20 to
And If We tnke from the Dlr~in1stR those who
thoughtlessly adopt IL because 1t ts now; those who
adopt It from its supposed Inconsistency with the
ology they bate those Who rrejudlced IN s favor
by It's falling with untsah4hsd dosuaas OF phl!oso
ply or Aete;.a. Herbert Spencer xnnn3 rhiloso.
nhcrs and Cnsrlcs Lyell among geoloRist*, we will
hare left very aulal remnant OF cultured thinkers