New-York tribune., 1876-10-14

process OF eFOlullOn Will DC VIII HcdA
of any lacuna between the first and second verses
of Genesis, and when the theoogian intimates that
between the "begnnng" of the one and the
"chaos" of the other there may have been an in-
terval long enough for all the requirements of geol-
Ogy, he Stands by and admires' the flexibiity of
interpretations of which the Scriptures capable.
But it is time that we proceeded to the considera-
ton of the much-heralded demonstration of evolu-
ton to which his third lecture was devoted.
And here any one accustomed to reason cannot
fail to be struck with the loose and indeed misiead-
ing way in which he employs the word "demon-
straton." As defined by Webster, that word means,
in its logical sense, the act of proving by the
syllOgistic process the proof itself and IN ITS
mathematical, "a course of reasoning showing that
a certain result is necessary consequence OF as
sumed premises, these premises beng dehnltlOhS'
axioms, and previously established propositions
Now it is little difficult to determine in which OF
these two Huxley uses the word bat from ms
reference to the COpernican astronomy, which de-
pends the eXactest mathematical calculations, II
is evident that in his conclusion at least he means
us to take it in its mathematical sense. But IN his
former lectures he employs it simply in ts logical
sense, signifyiug proof-or that which i5 put
forth as proof. He distinguishes between the evil
dence of testimony and the evidence OF crcnm-
stance and tells that he has to do only with the
latter. Bat circumstantial evidence never can
amount to a demonstration unless indeed we are
content to use that word as Huxley has done in the
concluding sentence of his first lecture, when he
says, 81 shall e,dearor 10 show that there is a third
kind Of edence which, being as complete as any CT
acnce rhch re can hope to obtain on such q subject,
and being uh0J and entirely in fr0r Of er0nfi0n, mag
fnTIg be CGHd dcaORsiIdfro ccideEG 0f Hs har'D
occurred" That is to say when we have as
much evidence as, we can hone 10 OBTAIN OBTAIN
any subject provided il be in favor OF our theory
regarding il, we may call it demonstration! a very
comfortable canon surely for by II We may demon
strate great uany other things than evolution.
THE LAWS OF CIRCUMsTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
But as everybody knows, it is not enough, in order
to prove a ease from circumstantial evidence that
whatever evidence we have be in favor Of our
theory il is required also that no other hypothesis
can account for the circumstances have been fur
nished by distinguished legal friend with state:
mcnt of the principles which regulate the value or
circumstantial evidence which may be thus con-
dcnsCd: The process of proof ny circllhs'ahIlai
evidence consists in reasoning from suc fact as are
EnOrn or BYOrcd and thence establishing Such - are
cCnectured 10 exist The process Is fatally Vicious
first, il anv material circumstance from whica we
seek tO deGucc the conclusion depends itself on con
lecture; anil second if the known facts are not :uc
~ 10 exclude 10 reasonable degree ot certainty
every other hypothess.'
Now, tried by these two tests, the professor
argument il a failure. For, to take the latter first
after setting forth tho horses Of bis new apocalypse
in order and showing the gradual ascent Of one
above the other IN the TWO RESPECTS Wlncn ne 'o ,"
infinitely specifies, lac makes 40 attempt 20 ?'0'e
that the existence of these fossils Is lnc0nSlS'rt
with every othcr theory save that of evolution re
ONLY says in The naIyeSt possible manner: me
Nv other hvuo,hesis that could be framed would
be The that the anchitherlnm, the hpHarloil, ana
the horse had been created separately and at separ
ate cpochf of tie 0Rd for that there c0ad DC no scC-
tic eridcnoe" But where is the evidence, scientific
or otherwise, that there was eyolutionf we see
these fossils. Huxley gGD thar they are as tey ar
because the higher evolved uSelt ont OF me ioWc'
we san that they they are because God cr"ate
them in series and for our belief IN creation we
have all the reasons, personal, p'lloNophir anu ~
torical which "" have for receiving the b!1'r as ne
Word of God. That NAV not be what Prof. Huxley
would call scientific evidence but such a. 1t ~ y y
better than no evidence at all, and Proi haAley
gives ~ none.
A BEGGING or THE QUESTION.
For his argument rests on a conjecture, and so 1t
violates the first # the two canons regulating cir
cumstautal evidence. His conclusion Is thus a
hypothcsis evolved from a hypothesis. To see that
this is indeed the case, lot us put his argument III
svlloyistic form. Il is rs follows: Wherever We
lave an ascending s.reS of animals with m'uliGa-
tions of structure rising one above aholler' tiI'
later forms must nave evolved thc'HsrN's IIoi!i VIZ
rorlier In the ease OF these fossil horses we nave
such series therefore the theory oi evolution };
established universally for all orgi.il1 ana ah.al
lif, Now even If We admit ms premises e'trA
ou, must see that the conclusion - lar ''o
..yccping. II oucht 10 have been confined
Ia the horses of which he was treating. h't l'SS-
ING that let us ask where Is the proof of the mayor
nrctois,f Indeed that premise Is suppftS'Ct alt'-
grther aud hc nowEcIr attempts t. snow lIa' t.r ,
existence OF an ascending series oi ai'iii'iS' Win
u,olifcati ms of structure ascending one aboN" "d-
Other /. ap ipfglIibieipdcdOR that the higher lem-
hers of the series evolved themselves ont ol the
lower There, in the suppressed premise, IN "hIcH
Wbatcv cautions 10 look most wanly aiier i2laI{
,Lc ,i,v. ia UuXlcys reasoning is 10 bc found lie
has taken fer granted in the major prrnilsr Hi IlS
argument. which is conveniently Hut 3l slsh', III um'
very thing which, amid great r'uIlSu on run !H
rotg BE- at out % demonstrate. N"hody dchl's 'le
r\istrucc Of the fossil horses but s inference lrol
their existence. 10 the tiirct tha ne acr luis ,s
nm evolution Of the earlier aaehlthcruh' Is PuIeV
md entirely begged. The existence OF a series d1es
not necessarily involve the evolution OF ire hlghtr
members of II from the lower. IheStep' OF stII
H., up one above another hut we cannot ic'7"!
that therefore the whole staircase EaS developer
.,f ont of the lowest step. IL may D puNlo'c ID
arlgc all the different notifications ~ tho steam
,,.;"c from its first and cTiiicst form up to It's
l,tr.t and most completely organized structure ia
regular eradation; hut that would mol prove 'n'V
the last grow ont of the hr'j. NoGouu' ~ SUI q
case there has been pf0Hcss-.o "ouu' IN tV III
hr,, development tOo-bUt II w2s progress glded
and dcyr 1pmcut directed byd p@f'9J ara Fl@rc'c
In mind Aud nowhere IN al tne 'Ni''lhs otner "a
trrs will you find notifications increasing an"
ucruC,uathg themselves except under the lLtcfN'l-
,o,l of some intelligent WlHd. Iheri1r' az present
expcrcncc is AGAINST this mayor Prenl'3e 'n lluH,
Ir,' has 50 quietly taken for granted II y i par,
rcni.cturc | will 20 so far rs 90 say tiat even II
he should lind in the geologic records an iEo lhle
,,mg forms he desires, these Will not furnish eEl-
drncc that tie higher members Of the series rose o,'
Of the lower by process OF evolution ! he hA, eA,i
rncr of graduated series Is one thin2 IN" EtoN''
- tbc scrrs ont Of IT, lowest member is quite ano'
her No Doubt II it could be proved that there was
such n growth, we should certainly hnd surh Il
series: but il is a mistake to suppose that' because
81 tLGt tnr existence of the ceres has proved that
there was growth. This being the case ne aTsu-
mint of HuN,cy is something very dEeirA' from
dr,uoustration--io wit, a tallary
EVOLUTION NOT WE'LL BASED.
IudccJ. 10 affirm. rs he did, that eyo,ution stands
cxoctIv ON ;hc same basis as the Coperucan theory