The daily gazette., 1876-10-03
EVOLUTION.


be regarded as among the most i'm
portant events of late occurrence. 1t |
is not to be denied that many minds |
for years past have been, consciously
or unconsciously, greatly impressed
with the confident assertions of the
anti Bible school of theorists-asser-
tions which are il substance. that
iodern discoveries have furnished
proof that the Bible history isa mere
myrth. The arrogance with which
these assertions have been made by the
Darwin and Huxley school has,
with the usual eff9ct of arrogance
allied to supposed learning, won the
respect of many who have not the
time, the ability or the inclination to
study and investigate, while all that
class: unfortunately somewhat large,
who have secret desired TO over
throw the authority of revelation have
eagerly seized on the crude generliza-
tions ofthe evolutionists and accepted
them as final facts, established and
conclusive. Students who have fol-
lowed the. .evolutionists and carefully
watched their reasons and reasonings
have always understood that they had
no just claim to the name of scientists,
and that evolution" is not science.
1t is but theory, and they are but
theorists. Theory is only tool of
science. But the strong hold which the
evolutionists had obtained on the
public attention made it very desirable
that the American mind should have
the opportunity of judging whether
their theories had approximated to the
domain OF true scientific investiga
tion.
Hence Mr.. Huxley's visit and lectures
have been timely, and their effect inn
portant. This effect may be summed
up in very brief statement. We have
no doubt that we express the practically
unanimous sentiment of the thinking
minds of the country, or Of all who
have heard or read his lectures. that
,, the doctrine of evolution, as explained
and illustrated by its great apostle. is
the most vague of all vague theories.
The ardent friends of the doctrine tell
us that Prof. Huxley has failed to do
it justice, that there is a vast deal
more in it than he has told, that in fact
he was not the man to illustrate it.
But this we are as competent to judge
of as they, and it may be accepted as
true that all that can be said in support
of the theory has been said, clearly,
compactly, ably, by the man who is
better able to say it thus than any
other believer in the theory
Great praise is due the simple and
Ineligible style of Professor Huxley
He did not mystify his audiences with
the absurd dialect of modern science.
which abounds in mysterious phrases
and words used to express or becloud
very simple ideas. He understood his
subject, and honestly desired his
hearers to understand it, and avoiding
the sort of dislectic language which
he often uses in his published articles,
designed for men of his own school,
who probably understand them, he
spoke in good English SO that any boy
in his audience could follow him. His
lectures were of course dull to one not
interested in the questions under dis
cussion. He went into the subject
with deliberation, uttered no clap.trap
or bombast. but calmly examined the
field. stated as well as he or any be-
llever in evolution could, the weak>
ness of the theory, and then proceeded
to develop the line of argument which
he regards as conclusive in its support,
Therefore, the effect on the thinking
American mind is the more remark
able, and to us who have no sort of
faith in the theory, the moro satisfac.
tory. For time at least the evolution
doctrines have been thoroughly de-
molished in the minds of American
thinkers and even in the pages of
publications where they have hereto
! fore found favor, we now find Jokes
and jests, ridiculing their pretensions
| to be called science.
Whatever be the value of evolution
theories in themselves, we do not
mistake the effect produced by their
apostles here. There is but one voice.
from press and mouth, and that voice
rather laugh than anything else.
A few possibly still ask. "Is this all
there is of it ?" Yes, this is emphati.
cally all there is of it. Prof. Huxley
has stated the doctrine, with its full
force, and supported it with its strong
est argument. Darwin has not the
power to do as much. And the argu-
ment, derived from the "one-horse"
pedigree, still lacks leg to stand on,
or rather lacks toe. And if all the
force of all the evolutIons were direc.
ted successfully to the discovery of the
mis.l G toe, the argument would still
lack leg. in fact would lack all it's
legs for it would prove nothing, and
remain only vague theory.
"If twice fifty were ninty-nine, we
could show you many mathematical
truths which we believe but which you
do not see. We believe them because
twice fifty is hundred, and that is
within one of ninty,nine and so close
to ittbat we are sure we shall some
day find where the missing fraction is.
and we shall then prove all we wish"
Thisi is the method of argument in all
the schools of science, so called, to
which evolution belongs.
1t would be idle to argue against
theories which are so weak as Prof.
Huxley has shown his to be. But the
man who is tempted to adopt them
is assuredly as wild as the man who
attempted to discover perpetual mo,
ton, The theory of pernetualmotion