,,on ,,the ,,reception ,,of ,,the       
',,origin ,,of ,,species'   by          
,,professor ,,thomas ,,henry ,,huxley   
,,from ,,the ,,life ,,and ,,letters ,,of
 ,,charles ,,darwin  ,,edited ,,by      
,,francis ,,darwin    ,,on ,,the        
,,reception ,,of ,,the ',,origin ,,of   
,,species4'  ,to the present generation1
 that is to say1 the people a few years 
on the hither and thither side of       
thirty1 the name of ,charles ,darwin    
stands alongside of those of ,isaac     
,newton and ,michael ,faraday2 and1 like
 them1 calls up the grand ideal of a    
searcher after truth and interpreter of 
,nature4  ,they think of him who bore it
 as a rare combination of genius1       
industry1 and unswerving veracity1 who  
earned his place among the most famous  
men of the age by sheer native power1 in
 the teeth of a gale of popular         
prejudice1 and uncheered by a sign of   
favour or appreciation from the official
 fountains of honour2 as one who in     
spite of an acute sensitiveness to      

praise and blame1 and notwithstanding   
provocations which might have excused   
any outbreak1 kept himself clear of all 
envy1 hatred1 and malice1 nor dealt     
otherwise than fairly and justly with   
the unfairness and injustice which was  
showered upon him2 while1 to the end of 
his days1 he was ready to listen with   
patience and respect to the most        
insignificant of reasonable objectors4  
,and with respect to that theory of the 
origin of the forms of life peopling our
 globe1 with which ,darwin's name is    
bound up as closely as that of ,newton  
with the theory of gravitation1 nothing 
seems to be further from the mind of the
 present generation than any attempt to 
smother it with ridicule or to crush it 
by vehemence of denunciation4 ,the      
struggle for existence1 and ,natural    
selection1 have become household words  
and every-day conceptions4  ,the reality
 and the importance of the natural      
processes on which ,darwin founds his   
deductions are no more doubted than     

those of growth and multiplication2 and1
 whether the full potency attributed to 
them is admitted or not1 no one doubts  
their vast and far-reaching             
significance4  ,wherever the biological 
sciences are studied1 the ',origin of   
,species' lights the paths of the       
investigator2 wherever they are taught  
it permeates the course of instruction4 
,nor has the influence of ,darwinian    
ideas been less profound1 beyond the    
realms of ,biology4 ,the oldest of all  
philosophies1 that of ,evolution1 was   
bound hand and foot and cast into utter 
darkness during the millennium of       
theological scholasticism4  ,but ,darwin
 poured new life-blood into the ancient 
frame2 the bonds burst1 and the         
revivified thought of ancient ,greece   
has proved itself to be a more adequate 
expression of the universal order of    
things than any of the schemes which    
have been accepted by the credulity and 
welcomed by the superstition of seventy 
later generations of men4  ,to any one  

who studies the signs of the times1 the 
emergence of the philosophy of          
,evolution1 in the attitude of claimant 
to the throne of the world of thought1  
from the limbo of hated and1 as many    
hoped1 forgotten things1 is the most    
portentous event of the nineteenth      
century4  ,but the most effective       
weapons of the modern champions of      
,evolution were fabricated by ,darwin2  
and the ',origin of ,species' has       
enlisted a formidable body of           
combatants1 trained in the severe school
 of ,physical ,science1 whose ears might
 have long remained deaf to the         
speculations of a priori philosophers4  
,i do not think any candid or instructed
 person will deny the truth of that     
which has just been asserted4  ,he may  
hate the very name of ,evolution1 and   
may deny its pretensions as vehemently  
as a ,jacobite denied those of ,george  
the ,second4  ,but there it is--not only
 as solidly seated as the ,hanoverian   
dynasty1 but happily independent of     

,parliamentary sanction--and the dullest
 antagonists have come to see that they 
have to deal with an adversary whose    
bones are to be broken by no amount of  
bad words4  ,even the theologians have  
almost ceased to pit the plain meaning  
of ,genesis against the no less plain   
meaning of ,nature4  ,their more candid1
 or more cautious1 representatives have 
given up dealing with ,evolution as if  
it were a damnable heresy1 and have     
taken refuge in one of two courses4     
,either they deny that ,genesis was     
meant to teach scientific truth1 and    
thus save the veracity of the record at 
the expense of its authority2 or they   
expend their energies in devising the   
cruel ingenuities of the reconciler1 and
 torture texts in the vain hope of      
making them confess the creed of        
,science4  ,but when the peine forte et 
dure is over1 the antique sincerity of  
the venerable sufferer always reasserts 
itself4  ,genesis is honest to the core1
 and professes to be no more than it is1

 a repository of venerable traditions of
 unknown origin1 claiming no scientific 
authority and possessing none4  ,as my  
pen finishes these passages1 ,i can but 
be amused to think what a terrible      
hubbub would have been made 7in truth   
was made7 about any similar expressions 
of opinion a quarter of a century ago4  
,in fact1 the contrast between the      
present condition of public opinion upon
 the ,darwinian question2 between the   
estimation in which ,darwin's views are 
now held in the scientific world2       
between the acquiescence1 or at least   
quiescence1 of the theologians of the   
self-respecting order at the present day
 and the outburst of antagonism on all  
sides in #aheh-i1 when the new theory   
respecting the origin of species first  
became known to the older generation to 
which ,i belong1 is so startling that1  
except for documentary evidence1 ,i     
should be sometimes inclined to think my
 memories dreams4  ,i have a great      
respect for the younger generation      

myself 7they can write our lives1 and   
ravel out all our follies1 if they      
choose to take the trouble1 by and by71 
and ,i should be glad to be assured that
 the feeling is reciprocal2 but ,i am   
afraid that the story of our dealings   
with ,darwin may prove a great hindrance
 to that veneration for our wisdom which
 ,i should like them to display4  ,we   
have not even the excuse that1 thirty   
years ago1 ,mr4 ,darwin was an obscure  
novice1 who had no claims on our        
attention4  ,on the contrary1 his       
remarkable zoological and geological    
investigations had long given him an    
assured position among the most eminent 
and original investigators of the day2  
while his charming ',voyage of a        
,naturalist' had justly earned him a    
wide-spread reputation among the general
 public4  ,i doubt if there was any man 
then living who had a better right to   
expect that anything he might choose to 
say on such a question as the ,origin of
 ,species would be listened to with     

profound attention1 and discussed with  
respect2 and there was certainly no man 
whose personal character should have    
afforded a better safeguard against     
attacks1 instinct with malignity and    
spiced with shameless impertinences4    
,yet such was the portion of one of the 
kindest and truest men that it was ever 
my good fortune to know2 and years had  
to pass away before misrepresentation1  
ridicule1 and denunciation1 ceased to be
 the most notable constituents of the   
majority of the multitudinous criticisms
 of his work which poured from the      
press4 ,i am loth to rake any of these  
ancient scandals from their             
well-deserved oblivion2 but ,i must make
 good a statement which may seem        
overcharged to the present generation1  
and there is no piece justificative more
 apt for the purpose1 or more worthy of 
such dishonour1 than the article in the 
',quarterly ,review' for ,july1 #ahfj4  
7,i was not aware when ,i wrote these   
passages that the authorship of the     

article had been publicly acknowledged4 
,confession unaccompanied by penitence1 
however1 affords no ground for          
mitigation of judgment2 and the         
kindliness with which ,mr4 ,darwin      
speaks of his assailant1 ,bishop        
,wilberforce 7vol4 ii471 is so striking 
an exemplification of his singular      
gentleness and modesty1 that it rather  
increases one's indignation against the 
presumption of his critic47 ,since ,lord
 ,brougham assailed ,dr4 ,young1 the    
world has seen no such specimen of the  
insolence of a shallow pretender to a   
,master in ,science as this remarkable  
production1 in which one of the most    
exact of observers1 most cautious of    
reasoners1 and most candid of           
expositors1 of this or any other age1 is
 held up to scorn as a flighty person1  
who endeavours to prop up his utterly   
rotten fabric of guess and speculation1 
and whose mode of dealing with nature is
 reprobated as utterly dishonourable to 
,natural ,science4  ,and all this high  

and mighty talk1 which would have been  
indecent in one of ,mr4 ,darwin's       
equals1 proceeds from a writer whose    
want of intelligence1 or of conscience1 
or of both1 is so great1 that1 by way of
 an objection to ,mr4 ,darwin's views1  
he can ask1 ,is it credible that all    
favourable varieties of turnips are     
tending to become men2 who is so        
ignorant of paleontology1 that he can   
talk of the flowers and fruits of the   
plants of the carboniferous epoch2 of   
comparative anatomy1 that he can gravely
 affirm the poison apparatus of the     
venomous snakes to be entirely separate 
from the ordinary laws of animal life1  
and peculiar to themselves2 of the      
rudiments of physiology1 that he can    
ask1 what advantage of life could alter 
the shape of the corpuscles into which  
the blood can be evaporated8  ,nor does 
the reviewer fail to flavour this       
outpouring of preposterous incapacity   
with a little stimulation of the odium  
theologicum4  ,some inkling of the      

history of the conflicts between        
,astronomy1 ,geology1 and ,theology1    
leads him to keep a retreat open by the 
proviso that he cannot consent to test  
the truth of ,natural ,science by the   
word of ,revelation2 but1 for all that1 
he devotes pages to the exposition of   
his conviction that ,mr4 ,darwin's      
theory contradicts the revealed relation
 of the creation to its ,creator1 and is
 inconsistent with the fulness of his   
glory4  ,if ,i confine my retrospect of 
the reception of the ',origin of        
,species' to a twelvemonth1 or          
thereabouts1 from the time of its       
publication1 ,i do not recollect        
anything quite so foolish and unmannerly
 as the ',quarterly ,review' article1   
unless1 perhaps1 the address of a       
,reverend ,professor to the ,dublin     
,geological ,society might enter into   
competition with it4  ,but a large      
proportion of ,mr4 ,darwin's critics had
 a lamentable resemblance to the        
',quarterly' reviewer1 in so far as they

 lacked either the will1 or the wit1 to 
make themselves masters of his doctrine2
 hardly any possessed the knowledge     
required to follow him through the      
immense range of biological and         
geological science which the ',origin'  
covered2 while1 too commonly1 they had  
prejudiced the case on theological      
grounds1 and1 as seems to be inevitable 
when this happens1 eked out lack of     
reason by superfluity of railing4  ,but 
it will be more pleasant and more       
profitable to consider those criticisms1
 which were acknowledged by writers of  
scientific authority1 or which bore     
internal evidence of the greater or less
 competency and1 often1 of the good     
faith1 of their authors4  ,restricting  
my survey to a twelvemonth1 or          
thereabouts1 after the publication of   
the ',origin1' ,i find among such       
critics ,louis ,agassiz 7,the arguments 
presented by ,darwin in favor of a      
universal derivation from one primary   
form of all the peculiarities existing  

now among living beings have not made   
the slightest impression on my mind4    
,until the facts of ,nature are shown to
 have been mistaken by those who have   
collected them1 and that they have a    
different meaning from that now         
generally assigned to them1 ,i shall    
therefore consider the transmutation    
theory as a scientific mistake1 untrue  
in its facts1 unscientific in its       
method1 and mischievous in its          
tendency4--,silliman's ',journal1'      
,july1 #ahfj1 pages #adc1 #aed4         
,extract from the #crd volume of        
',contributions to the ,natural ,history
 of the ,united ,states4'72 ,murray1 an 
excellent entomologist2 ,harvey1 a      
botanist of considerable repute2 and the
 author of an article in the ',edinburgh
 ,review1' all strongly adverse to      
,darwin4  ,pictet1 the distinguished and
 widely learned paleontogist of ,geneva1
 treats ,mr4 ,darwin with a respect     
which forms a grateful contrast to the  
tone of some of the preceding writers1  

but consents to go with him only a very 
little way4  7,i see no serious         
objections to the formation of varieties
 by natural selection in the existing   
world1 and that1 so far as earlier      
epochs are concerned1 this law may be   
assumed to explain the origin of closely
 allied species1 supposing for this     
purpose a very long period of time4     
,with regard to simple varieties and    
closely allied species1 ,i believe that 
,mr4 ,darwin's theory may explain many  
things1 and throw a great light upon    
numerous questions4--',sur l',origine de
 l',espece4  ,par ,charles ,darwin4'    
',archives des ,sc4 de la ,bibliotheque 
,universelle de ,geneve1' pages #bdb1   
#bdc1 ,mars #ahfj47 ,on the other hand1 
,lyell1 up to that time a pillar of the 
anti-transmutationists 7who regarded    
him1 ever afterwards1 as ,pallas ,athene
 may have looked at ,dian1 after the    
,endymion affair71 declared himself a   
,darwinian1 though not without putting  
in a serious caveat4  ,nevertheless1 he 

was a tower of strength1 and his        
courageous stand for truth as against   
consistency1 did him infinite honour4   
,as evolutionists1 sans phrase1 ,i do   
not call to mind among the biologists   
more than ,asa ,gray1 who fought the    
battle splendidly in the ,united        
,states2 ,hooker1 who was no less       
vigorous here2 the present ,sir ,john   
,lubbock and myself4  ,wallace was far  
away in the ,malay ,archipelago2 but1   
apart from his direct share in the      
promulgation of the theory of natural   
selection1 no enumeration of the        
influences at work1 at the time ,i am   
speaking of1 would be complete without  
the mention of his powerful essay ',on  
the ,law which has regulated the        
,introduction of ,new ,species1' which  
was published in #ahee4  ,on reading it 
afresh1 ,i have been astonished to      
recollect how small was the impression  
it made4  ,in ,france1 the influence of 
,elie de ,beaumont and of ,flourens--the
 former of whom is said to have damned  

himself to everlasting fame by inventing
 the nickname of la science moussante   
for ,evolutionism 7,one is reminded of  
the effect of another small academic    
epigram4  ,the so-called vertebral      
theory of the skull is said to have been
 nipped in the bud in ,france by the    
whisper of an academician to his        
neighbour1 that1 in that case1 one's    
head was a vertebre pensante471--to say 
nothing of the ill-will of other        
powerful members of the ,institut1      
produced for a long time the effect of a
 conspiracy of silence2 and many years  
passed before the ,academy redeemed     
itself from the reproach that the name  
of ,darwin was not to be found on the   
list of its members4 ,however1 an       
accomplished writer1 out of the range of
 academical influences1 ,m4 ,laugel1    
gave an excellent and appreciative      
notice of the ',origin' in the ',revue  
des ,deux ,mondes4'  ,germany took time 
to consider2 ,bronn produced a slightly 
,bowdlerized translation of the         

',origin'2 and ',kladderadatsch' cut his
 jokes upon the ape origin of man2 but  
,i do not call to mind that any         
scientific notability declared himself  
publicly in #ahfj4 7,however1 the man   
who stands next to ,darwin in his       
influence on modern biologists1 ,k4,e4  
von ,baer1 wrote to me1 in ,august      
#ahfj1 expressing his general assent to 
evolutionist views4  ,his phrase1 ,j'ai 
enonce les memes idees444que ,m4 ,darwin
 7volume ii47 is shown by his subsequent
 writings to mean no more than this47   
,none of us dreamed that1 in the course 
of a few years1 the strength 7and       
perhaps ,i may add the weakness7 of     
,darwinismus would have its most        
extensive and most brilliant            
illustrations in the land of learning4  
,if a foreigner may presume to speculate
 on the cause of this curious interval  
of silence1 ,i fancy it was that one    
moiety of the ,german biologists were   
orthodox at any price1 and the other    
moiety as distinctly heterodox4  ,the   

latter were evolutionists1 a priori1    
already1 and they must have felt the    
disgust natural to deductive            
philosophers at being offered an        
inductive and experimental foundation   
for a conviction which they had reached 
by a shorter cut4  ,it is undoubtedly   
trying to learn that1 though your       
conclusions may be all right1 your      
reasons for them are all wrong1 or1 at  
any rate1 insufficient4  ,on the whole1 
then1 the supporters of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
views in #ahfj were numerically         
extremely insignificant4  ,there is not 
the slightest doubt that1 if a general  
council of the ,church scientific had   
been held at that time1 we should have  
been condemned by an overwhelming       
majority4 ,and there is as little doubt 
that1 if such a council gathered now1   
the decree would be of an exactly       
contrary nature4  ,it would indicate a  
lack of sense1 as well as of modesty1 to
 ascribe to the men of that generation  
less capacity or less honesty than their

 successors possess4 ,what1 then1 are   
the causes which led instructed and     
fair-judging men of that day to arrive  
at a judgment so different from that    
which seems just and fair to those who  
follow them8 ,that is really one of the 
most interesting of all questions       
connected with the history of science1  
and ,i shall try to answer it4  ,i am   
afraid that in order to do so ,i must   
run the risk of appearing egotistical4  
,however1 if ,i tell my own story it is 
only because ,i know it better than that
 of other people4  ,i think ,i must have
 read the ',vestiges' before ,i left    
,england in #ahdf2 but1 if ,i did1 the  
book made very little impression upon   
me1 and ,i was not brought into serious 
contact with the ',species' question    
until after #ahej4  ,at that time1 ,i   
had long done with the ,pentateuchal    
cosmogony1 which had been impressed upon
 my childish understanding as ,divine   
truth1 with all the authority of parents
 and instructors1 and from which it had 

cost me many a struggle to get free4    
,but my mind was unbiassed in respect of
 any doctrine which presented itself1 if
 it professed to be based on purely     
philosophical and scientific reasoning4 
,it seemed to me then 7as it does now7  
that creation1 in the ordinary sense of 
the word1 is perfectly conceivable4  ,i 
find no difficulty in imagining that1 at
 some former period1 this universe was  
not in existence2 and that it made its  
appearance in six days 7or              
instantaneously1 if that is preferred71 
in consequence of the volition of some  
pre-existent ,being4  ,then1 as now1 the
 so-called a priori arguments against   
,theism2 and1 given a ,deity1 against   
the possibility of creative acts1       
appeared to me to be devoid of          
reasonable foundation4 ,i had not then1 
and ,i have not now1 the smallest a     
priori objection to raise to the account
 of the creation of animals and plants  
given in ',paradise ,lost1' in which    
,milton so vividly embodies the natural 

sense of ,genesis4  ,far be it from me  
to say that it is untrue because it is  
impossible4  ,i confine myself to what  
must be regarded as a modest and        
reasonable request for some particle of 
evidence that the existing species of   
animals and plants did originate in that
 way1 as a condition of my belief in a  
statement which appears to me to be     
highly improbable4  ,and1 by way of     
being perfectly fair1 ,i had exactly the
 same answer to give to the             
evolutionists of #ahea-h4  ,within the  
ranks of the biologists1 at that time1  
,i met with nobody1 except ,dr4 ,grant1 
of ,university ,college1 who had a word 
to say for ,evolution--and his advocacy 
was not calculated to advance the cause4
  ,outside these ranks1 the only person 
known to me whose knowledge and capacity
 compelled respect1 and who was1 at the 
same time1 a thorough-going             
evolutionist1 was ,mr4 ,herbert         
,spencer1 whose acquaintance ,i made1 ,i
 think1 in #aheb1 and then entered into 

the bonds of a friendship which1 ,i am  
happy to think1 has known no            
interruption4  ,many and prolonged were 
the battles we fought on this topic4    
,but even my friend's rare dialectic    
skill and copiousness of apt            
illustration could not drive me from my 
agnostic position4  ,i took my stand    
upon two grounds3  firstly1 that up to  
that time1 the evidence in favour of    
transmutation was wholly insufficient2  
and secondly1 that no suggestion        
respecting the causes of the            
transmutation assumed1 which had been   
made1 was in any way adequate to explain
 the phenomena4  ,looking back at the   
state of knowledge at that time1 ,i     
really do not see that any other        
conclusion was justifiable4  ,in those  
days ,i had never even heard of         
,treviranus' ',biologie4' ,however1 ,i  
had studied ,lamarck attentively and ,i 
had read the ',vestiges' with due care2 
but neither of them afforded me any good
 ground for changing my negative and    

critical attitude4  ,as for the         
',vestiges1' ,i confess that the book   
simply irritated me by the prodigious   
ignorance and thoroughly unscientific   
habit of mind manifested by the writer4 
,if it had any influence on me at all1  
it set me against ,evolution2 and the   
only review ,i ever have qualms of      
conscience about1 on the ground of      
needless savagery1 is one ,i wrote on   
the ',vestiges' while under that        
influence4  ,with respect to the        
',philosophie ,zoologique1' it is no    
reproach to ,lamarck to say that the    
discussion of the ,species question in  
that work1 whatever might be said for it
 in #ahji1 was miserably below the level
 of the knowledge of half a century     
later4  ,in that interval of time the   
elucidation of the structure of the     
lower animals and plants had given rise 
to wholly new conceptions of their      
relations2 histology and embryology1 in 
the modern sense1 had been created2     
physiology had been reconstituted2 the  

facts of distribution1 geological and   
geographical1 had been prodigiously     
multiplied and reduced to order4 ,to any
 biologist whose studies had carried him
 beyond mere species-mongering in #ahej1
 one-half of ,lamarck's arguments were  
obsolete and the other half erroneous1  
or defective1 in virtue of omitting to  
deal with the various classes of        
evidence which had been brought to light
 since his time4  ,moreover his one     
suggestion as to the cause of the       
gradual modification of species--effort 
excited by change of conditions--was1 on
 the face of it1 inapplicable to the    
whole vegetable world4  ,i do not think 
that any impartial judge who reads the  
',philosophie ,zoologique' now1 and who 
afterwards takes up ,lyell's trenchant  
and effectual criticism 7published as   
far back as #ahcj71 will be disposed to 
allot to ,lamarck a much higher place in
 the establishment of biological        
evolution than that which ,bacon assigns
 to himself in relation to physical     

science generally1--buccinator tantum4  
7,erasmus ,darwin first promulgated     
,lamarck's fundamental conceptions1 and1
 with greater logical consistency1 he   
had applied them to plants4 ,but the    
advocates of his claims have failed to  
show that he1 in any respect1           
anticipated the central idea of the     
',origin of ,species4'7  ,but1 by a     
curious irony of fate1 the same         
influence which led me to put as little 
faith in modern speculations on this    
subject1 as in the venerable traditions 
recorded in the first two chapters of   
,genesis1 was perhaps more potent than  
any other in keeping alive a sort of    
pious conviction that ,evolution1 after 
all1 would turn out true4  ,i have      
recently read afresh the first edition  
of the ',principles of ,geology'2 and   
when ,i consider that this remarkable   
book had been nearly thirty years in    
everybody's hands1 and that it brings   
home to any reader of ordinary          
intelligence a great principle and a    

great fact--the principle1 that the past
 must be explained by the present1      
unless good cause be shown to the       
contrary2 and the fact1 that1 so far as 
our knowledge of the past history of    
life on our globe goes1 no such cause   
can be shown 7,the same principle and   
the same fact guide the result from all 
sound historical investigation4         
,grote's ',history of ,greece' is a     
product of the same intellectual        
movement as ,lyell's ',principles4'7--,i
 cannot but believe that ,lyell1 for    
others1 as for myself1 was the chief    
agent for smoothing the road for        
,darwin4  ,for consistent               
uniformitarianism postulates evolution  
as much in the organic as in the        
inorganic world4  ,the origin of a new  
species by other than ordinary agencies 
would be a vastly greater catastrophe   
than any of those which ,lyell          
successfully eliminated from sober      
geological speculation4  ,in fact1 no   
one was better aware of this than ,lyell

 himself4 7,lyell1 with perfect right1  
claims this position for himself4  ,he  
speaks of having advocated a law of     
continuity even in the organic world1 so
 far as possible without adopting       
,lamarck's theory of transmutation444   
,but while ,i taught that as often as   
certain forms of animals and plants     
disappeared1 for reasons quite          
intelligible to us1 others took their   
place by virtue of a causation which was
 beyond our comprehension2 it remained  
for ,darwin to accumulate proof that    
there is no break between the incoming  
and the outgoing species1 that they are 
the work of evolution1 and not of       
special creation444  ,i had certainly   
prepared the way in this country1 in six
 editions of my work before the         
',vestiges of ,creation' appeared in    
#ahdb #ahdd1 for the reception of       
,darwin's gradual and insensible        
evolution of species4--',life and       
,letters1' ,letter to ,haeckel1 volume  
ii4 page #dcf4 ,november #bc1 #ahfh47   

,if one reads any of the earlier        
editions of the ',principles' carefully 
7especially by the light of the         
interesting series of letters recently  
published by ,sir ,charles ,lyell's     
biographer71 it is easy to see that1    
with all his energetic opposition to    
,lamarck1 on the one hand1 and to the   
ideal quasi-progressionism of ,agassiz1 
on the other1 ,lyell1 in his own mind1  
was strongly disposed to account for the
 origination of all past and present    
species of living things by natural     
causes4  ,but he would have liked1 at   
the same time1 to keep the name of      
creation for a natural process which he 
imagined to be incomprehensible4  ,in a 
letter addressed to ,mantell 7dated     
,march #b1 #ahbg71 ,lyell speaks of     
having just read ,lamarck2 he expresses 
his delight at ,lamarck's theories1 and 
his personal freedom from any objection 
based on theological grounds4  ,and     
though he is evidently alarmed at the   
pithecoid origin of man involved in     

,lamarck's doctrine1 he observes3--     
,but1 after all1 what changes species   
may really undergo6  ,how impossible    
will it be to distinguish and lay down a
 line1 beyond which some of the         
so-called extinct species have never    
passed into recent ones4  ,again1 the   
following remarkable passage occurs in  
the postscript of a letter addressed to 
,sir ,john ,herschel in #ahcf3--  ,in   
regard to the origination of new        
species1 ,i am very glad to find that   
you think it probable that it may be    
carried on through the intervention of  
intermediate causes4  ,i left this      
rather to be inferred1 not thinking it  
worth while to offend a certain class of
 persons by embodying in words what     
would only be a speculation4  7,in the  
same sense1 see the letter to ,whewell1 
,march #g1 #ahcg1 volume ii41 page #e3--
  ,in regard to this last subject the   
changes from one set of animal and      
vegetable species to another444you      
remember what ,herschel said in his     

letter to me4  ,if ,i had stated as     
plainly as he has done the possibility  
of the introduction or origination of   
fresh species being a natural1 in       
contradistinction to a miraculous       
process1 ,i should have raised a host of
 prejudices against me1 which are       
unfortunately opposed at every step to  
any philosopher who attempts to address 
the public on these mysterious subjects4
  ,see also letter to ,sedgwick1        
,january #ab1 #ahch ii4 page #ce47  ,he 
goes on to refer to the criticisms which
 have been directed against him on the  
ground that1 by leaving species to be   
originated by miracle1 he is            
inconsistent with his own doctrine of   
uniformitarianism2 and he leaves it to  
be understood that he had not replied1  
on the ground of his general objection  
to controversy4  ,lyell's contemporaries
 were not without some inkling of his   
esoteric doctrine4  ,whewell's ',history
 of the ,inductive ,sciences1' whatever 
its philosophical value1 is always worth

 reading and always interesting1 if     
under no other aspect than that of an   
evidence of the speculative limits      
within which a highly-placed divine     
might1 at that time1 safely range at    
will4 ,in the course of his discussion  
of uniformitarianism1 the encyclopaedic 
,master of ,trinity observes3--  ,mr4   
,lyell1 indeed1 has spoken of an        
hypothesis that 'the successive creation
 of species may constitute a regular    
part of the economy of nature1' but he  
has nowhere1 ,i think1 so described this
 process as to make it appear in what   
department of science we are to place   
the hypothesis4  ,are these new species 
created by the production1 at long      
intervals1 of an offspring different in 
species from the parents8  ,or are the  
species so created produced without     
parents8  ,are they gradually evolved   
from some embryo substance8  ,or do they
 suddenly start from the ground1 as in  
the creation of the poet8444  ,some     
selection of one of these forms of the  

hypothesis1 rather than the others1 with
 evidence for the selection1 is         
requisite to entitle us to place it     
among the known causes of change1 which 
in this chapter we are considering4     
,the bare conviction that a creation of 
species has taken place1 whether once or
 many times1 so long as it is           
unconnected with our organical sciences1
 is a tenet of ,natural ,theology rather
 than of ,physical ,philosophy4         
7,whewell's ',history1' volume iii4 page
 #fci-fdj 7,edition #b1 #ahdg477  ,the  
earlier part of this criticism appears  
perfectly just and appropriate2 but1    
from the concluding paragraph1 ,whewell 
evidently imagines that by creation     
,lyell means a preternatural            
intervention of the ,deity2 whereas the 
letter to ,herschel shows that1 in his  
own mind1 ,lyell meant natural          
causation2 and ,i see no reason to doubt
 7,the following passages in ,lyell's   
letters appear to me decisive on this   
point3--  ,to ,darwin1 ,october #c1     

#ahei 7ii1 #cbe71 on first reading the  
',origin4'  ,i have long seen most      
clearly that if any concession is made1 
all that you claim in your concluding   
pages will follow4  ,it is this which   
has made me so long hesitate1 always    
feeling that the case of ,man and his   
,races1 and of other animals1 and that  
of plants1 is one and the same1 and that
 if a vera causa be admitted for one    
instant1 instead of a purely unknown and
 imaginary one1 such as the word        
'creation1' all the consequences must   
follow4  ,to ,darwin1 ,march #ae1 #ahfc 
7volume ii4 page #cfe74  ,i remember    
that it was the conclusion he ,lamarck  
came to about man that fortified me     
thirty years ago against the great      
impression which his arguments at first 
made on my mind1 all the greater because
 ,constant ,prevost1 a pupil of         
,cuvier's forty years ago1 told me his  
conviction 'that ,cuvier thought species
 not real1 but that science could not   
advance without assuming that they were 

so4'  ,to ,hooker1 ,march #i1 #ahfc     
7volume ii4 page #cfa71 in reference to 
,darwin's feeling about the ',antiquity 
of ,man4'  ,he ,darwin seems much       
disappointed that ,i do not go farther  
with him1 or do not speak out more4  ,i 
can only say that ,i have spoken out to 
the full extent of my present           
convictions1 and even beyond my state of
 ,,feeling as to man's unbroken descent 
from the brutes1 and ,i find ,i am half 
converting not a few who were in arms   
against ,darwin1 and are even now       
against ,huxley4  ,he speaks of having  
had to abandon old and long cherished   
ideas1 which constituted the charm to me
 of the theoretical part of the science 
in my earlier day1 when ,i believed with
 ,pascal in the theory1 as ,hallam terms
 it1 of 'the arch-angel ruined4'  ,see  
the same sentiment in the letter to     
,darwin1 ,march #aa1 #ahfc1 page #cfc3--
  ,i think the old 'creation' is almost 
as much required as ever1 but of course 
it takes a new form if ,lamarck's views 

improved by yours are adopted47 that1 if
 ,sir ,charles could have avoided the   
inevitable corollary of the pithecoid   
origin of man--for which1 to the end of 
his life1 he entertained a profound     
antipathy--he would have advocated the  
efficiency of causes now in operation to
 bring about the condition of the       
organic world1 as stoutly as he         
championed that doctrine in reference to
 inorganic nature4  ,the fact is1 that a
 discerning eye might have seen that    
some form or other of the doctrine of   
transmutation was inevitable1 from the  
time when the truth enunciated by       
,william ,smith that successive strata  
are characterised by different kinds of 
fossil remains1 became a firmly         
established law of nature4  ,no one has 
set forth the speculative consequences  
of this generalisation better than the  
historian of the ',inductive            
,sciences'3--  ,but the study of geology
 opens to us the spectacle of many      
groups of species which have1 in the    

course of the earth's history1 succeeded
 each other at vast intervals of time2  
one set of animals and plants           
disappearing1 as it would seem1 from the
 face of our planet1 and others1 which  
did not before exist1 becoming the only 
occupants of the globe4  ,and the       
dilemma then presents itself to us      
anew3--either we must accept the        
doctrine of the transmutation of        
species1 and must suppose that the      
organized species of one geological     
epoch were transmuted into those of     
another by some long-continued agency of
 natural causes2 or else1 we must       
believe in many successive acts of      
creation and extinction of species1 out 
of the common course of nature2 acts    
which1 therefore1 we may properly call  
miraculous4  7,whewell's ',history of   
the ,inductive ,sciences4'  ,edition    
ii41 #ahdg1 volume iii4 pages #fbd-fbe4 
,see for the author's verdict1 pages    
#fch-ci47  ,dr4 ,whewell decides in     
favour of the latter conclusion4  ,and  

if any one had plied him with the four  
questions which he puts to ,lyell in the
 passage already cited1 all that can be 
said now is that he would certainly have
 rejected the first4  ,but would he     
really have had the courage to say that 
a ,rhinoceros tichorhinus1 for instance1
 was produced without parents2 or was   
evolved from some embryo substance2 or  
that it suddenly started from the ground
 like ,milton's lion pawing to get free 
his hinder parts4 ,i permit myself to   
doubt whether even the ,master of       
,trinity's well-tried courage--physical1
 intellectual1 and moral--would have    
been equal to this feat4  ,no doubt the 
sudden concurrence of half-a-ton of     
inorganic molecules into a live         
rhinoceros is conceivable1 and therefore
 may be possible4  ,but does such an    
event lie sufficiently within the bounds
 of probability to justify the belief in
 its occurrence on the strength of any  
attainable1 or1 indeed1 imaginable1     
evidence8  ,in view of the assertion    

7often repeated in the early days of the
 opposition to ,darwin7 that he had     
added nothing to ,lamarck1 it is very   
interesting to observe that the         
possibility of a fifth alternative1 in  
addition to the four he has stated1 has 
not dawned upon ,dr4 ,whewell's mind4   
,the suggestion that new species may    
result from the selective action of     
external conditions upon the variations 
from their specific type which          
individuals present--and which we call  
spontaneous1 because we are ignorant of 
their causation--is as wholly unknown to
 the historian of scientific ideas as it
 was to biological specialists before   
#aheh4 ,but that suggestion is the      
central idea of the ',origin of         
,species1' and contains the quintessence
 of ,darwinism4  ,thus1 looking back    
into the past1 it seems to me that my   
own position of critical expectancy was 
just and reasonable1 and must have been 
taken up1 on the same grounds1 by many  
other persons4 ,if ,agassiz told me that

 the forms of life which had            
successively tenanted the globe were the
 incarnations of successive thoughts of 
the ,deity2 and that he had wiped out   
one set of these embodiments by an      
appalling geological catastrophe as soon
 as ,his ideas took a more advanced     
shape1 ,i found myself not only unable  
to admit the accuracy of the deductions 
from the facts of paleontology1 upon    
which this astounding hypothesis was    
founded1 but ,i had to confess my want  
of any means of testing the correctness 
of his explanation of them4  ,and       
besides that1 ,i could by no means see  
what the explanation explained4         
,neither did it help me to be told by an
 eminent anatomist that species had     
succeeded one another in time1 in virtue
 of a continuously operative creational 
law4  ,that seemed to me to be no more  
than saying that species had succeeded  
one another1 in the form of a           
vote-catching resolution1 with law to   
please the man of science1 and          

creational to draw the orthodox4  ,so ,i
 took refuge in that thatige ,skepsis   
which ,goethe has so well defined2 and1 
reversing the apostolic precept to be   
all things to all men1 ,i usually       
defended the tenability of the received 
doctrines1 when ,i had to do with the   
transmutationists2 and stood up for the 
possibility of transmutation among the  
orthodox--thereby1 no doubt1 increasing 
an already current1 but quite           
undeserved1 reputation for needless     
combativeness4  ,i remember1 in the     
course of my first interview with ,mr4  
,darwin1 expressing my belief in the    
sharpness of the lines of demarcation   
between natural groups and in the       
absence of transitional forms1 with all 
the confidence of youth and imperfect   
knowledge4  ,i was not aware1 at that   
time1 that he had then been many years  
brooding over the species-question2 and 
the humorous smile which accompanied his
 gentle answer1 that such was not       
altogether his view1 long haunted and   

puzzled me4  ,but it would seem that    
four or five years' hard work had       
enabled me to understand what it meant2 
for ,lyell 7',life and ,letters1' volume
 ii4 page #bab471 writing to ,sir       
,charles ,bunbury 7under date of ,april 
#cj1 #ahef71 says3--  ,when ,huxley1    
,hooker1 and ,wollaston were at         
,darwin's last week they 7all four of   
them7 ran a tilt against                
species--further1 ,i believe1 than they 
are prepared to go4  ,i recollect       
nothing of this beyond the fact of      
meeting ,mr4 ,wollaston2 and except for 
,sir ,charles' distinct assurance as to 
all four1 ,i should have thought my     
outrecuidance was probably a            
counterblast to ,wollaston's            
conservatism4  ,with regard to ,hooker1 
he was already1 like ,voltaire's        
,habbakuk1 capable du tout in the way of
 advocating ,evolution4  ,as ,i have    
already said1 ,i imagine that most of   
those of my contemporaries who thought  
seriously about the matter1 were very   

much in my own state of mind--inclined  
to say to both ,mosaists and            
,evolutionists1 a plague on both your   
houses6 and disposed to turn aside from 
an interminable and apparently fruitless
 discussion1 to labour in the fertile   
fields of ascertainable fact4  ,and ,i  
may1 therefore1 further suppose that the
 publication of the ,darwin and ,wallace
 papers in #aheh1 and still more that of
 the ',origin' in #ahei1 had the effect 
upon them of the flash of light1 which  
to a man who has lost himself in a dark 
night1 suddenly reveals a road which1   
whether it takes him straight home or   
not1 certainly goes his way4  ,that     
which we were looking for1 and could not
 find1 was a hypothesis respecting the  
origin of known organic forms1 which    
assumed the operation of no causes but  
such as could be proved to be actually  
at work4  ,we wanted1 not to pin our    
faith to that or any other speculation1 
but to get hold of clear and definite   
conceptions which could be brought face 

to face with facts and have their       
validity tested4  ,the ',origin'        
provided us with the working hypothesis 
we sought4 ,moreover1 it did the immense
 service of freeing us for ever from the
 dilemma--refuse to accept the creation 
hypothesis1 and what have you to propose
 that can be accepted by any cautious   
reasoner8  ,in #aheg1 ,i had no answer  
ready1 and ,i do not think that any one 
else had4  ,a year later1 we reproached 
ourselves with dullness for being       
perplexed by such an inquiry4  ,my      
reflection1 when ,i first made myself   
master of the central idea of the       
',origin1' was1 ,how extremely stupid   
not to have thought of that6  ,i suppose
 that ,columbus' companions said much   
the same when he made the egg stand on  
end4  ,the facts of variability1 of the 
struggle for existence1 of adaptation to
 conditions1 were notorious enough2 but 
none of us had suspected that the road  
to the heart of the species problem lay 
through them1 until ,darwin and ,wallace

 dispelled the darkness1 and the        
beacon-fire of the ',origin' guided the 
benighted4  ,whether the particular     
shape which the doctrine of evolution1  
as applied to the organic world1 took in
 ,darwin's hands1 would prove to be     
final or not1 was1 to me1 a matter of   
indifference4  ,in my earliest          
criticisms of the ',origin' ,i ventured 
to point out that its logical foundation
 was insecure so long as experiments in 
selective breeding had not produced     
varieties which were more or less       
infertile2 and that insecurity remains  
up to the present time4  ,but1 with any 
and every critical doubt which my       
sceptical ingenuity could suggest1 the  
,darwinian hypothesis remained          
incomparably more probable than the     
creation hypothesis4  ,and if we had    
none of us been able to discern the     
paramount significance of some of the   
most patent and notorious of natural    
facts1 until they were1 so to speak1    
thrust under our noses1 what force      

remained in the dilemma--creation or    
nothing8  ,it was obvious that1         
hereafter1 the probability would be     
immensely greater1 that the links of    
natural causation were hidden from our  
purblind eyes1 than that natural        
causation should be incompetent to      
produce all the phenomena of nature4    
,the only rational course for those who 
had no other object than the attainment 
of truth1 was to accept ,darwinism as a 
working hypothesis1 and see what could  
be made of it4  ,either it would prove  
its capacity to elucidate the facts of  
organic life1 or it would break down    
under the strain4  ,this was surely the 
dictate of common sense2 and1 for once1 
common sense carried the day4  ,the     
result has been that complete volte-face
 of the whole scientific world1 which   
must seem so surprising to the present  
generation4  ,i do not mean to say that 
all the leaders of biological science   
have avowed themselves ,darwinians2 but 
,i do not think that there is a single  

zoologist1 or botanist1 or              
palaeontologist1 among the multitude of 
active workers of this generation1 who  
is other than an evolutionist1          
profoundly influenced by ,darwin's      
views4  ,whatever may be the ultimate   
fate of the particular theory put forth 
by ,darwin1 ,i venture to affirm that1  
so far as my knowledge goes1 all the    
ingenuity and all the learning of       
hostile critics have not enabled them to
 adduce a solitary fact1 of which it can
 be said1 this is irreconcilable with   
the ,darwinian theory4  ,in the         
prodigious variety and complexity of    
organic nature1 there are multitudes of 
phenomena which are not deducible from  
any generalisations we have yet reached4
  ,but the same may be said of every    
other class of natural objects4  ,i     
believe that astronomers cannot yet get 
the moon's motions into perfect         
accordance with the theory of           
gravitation4  ,it would be              
inappropriate1 even if it were possible1

 to discuss the difficulties and        
unresolved problems which have hitherto 
met the evolutionist1 and which will    
probably continue to puzzle him for     
generations to come1 in the course of   
this brief history of the reception of  
,mr4 ,darwin's great work4  ,but there  
are two or three objections of a more   
general character1 based1 or supposed to
 be based1 upon philosophical and       
theological foundations1 which were     
loudly expressed in the early days of   
the ,darwinian controversy1 and which1  
though they have been answered over and 
over again1 crop up now and then to the 
present day4  ,the most singular of     
these1 perhaps immortal1 fallacies1     
which live on1 ,tithonus-like1 when     
sense and force have long deserted them1
 is that which charges ,mr4 ,darwin with
 having attempted to reinstate the old  
pagan goddess1 ,chance4  ,it is said    
that he supposes variations to come     
about by chance1 and that the fittest   
survive the chances of the struggle for 

existence1 and thus chance is           
substituted for providential design4    
,it is not a little wonderful that such 
an accusation as this should be brought 
against a writer who has1 over and over 
again1 warned his readers that when he  
uses the word spontaneous1 he merely    
means that he is ignorant of the cause  
of that which is so termed2 and whose   
whole theory crumbles to pieces if the  
uniformity and regularity of natural    
causation for illimitable past ages is  
denied4  ,but probably the best answer  
to those who talk of ,darwinism meaning 
the reign of chance1 is to ask them what
 they themselves understand by chance8  
,do they believe that anything in this  
universe happens without reason or      
without a cause8  ,do they really       
conceive that any event has no cause1   
and could not have been predicted by any
 one who had a sufficient insight into  
the order of ,nature8  ,if they do1 it  
is they who are the inheritors of       
antique superstition and ignorance1 and 

whose minds have never been illumined by
 a ray of scientific thought4 ,the one  
act of faith in the convert to science1 
is the confession of the universality of
 order and of the absolute validity in  
all times and under all circumstances1  
of the law of causation4  ,this         
confession is an act of faith1 because1 
by the nature of the case1 the truth of 
such propositions is not susceptible of 
proof4 ,but such faith is not blind1 but
 reasonable2 because it is invariably   
confirmed by experience1 and constitutes
 the sole trustworthy foundation for all
 action4  ,if one of these people1 in   
whom the chance-worship of our remoter  
ancestors thus strangely survives1      
should be within reach of the sea when a
 heavy gale is blowing1 let him betake  
himself to the shore and watch the      
scene4  ,let him note the infinite      
variety of form and size of the tossing 
waves out at sea2 or of the curves of   
their foam-crested breakers1 as they    
dash against the rocks2 let him listen  

to the roar and scream of the shingle as
 it is cast up and torn down the beach2 
or look at the flakes of foam as they   
drive hither and thither before the     
wind2 or note the play of colours1 which
 answers a gleam of sunshine as it falls
 upon the myriad bubbles4  ,surely here1
 if anywhere1 he will say that chance is
 supreme1 and bend the knee as one who  
has entered the very penetralia of his  
divinity4  ,but the man of science knows
 that here1 as everywhere1 perfect order
 is manifested2 that there is not a     
curve of the waves1 not a note in the   
howling chorus1 not a rainbow-glint on a
 bubble1 which is other than a necessary
 consequence of the ascertained laws of 
nature2 and that with a sufficient      
knowledge of the conditions1 competent  
physico-mathematical skill could account
 for1 and indeed predict1 every one of  
these chance events4  ,a second very    
common objection to ,mr4 ,darwin's views
 was 7and is71 that they abolish        
,teleology1 and eviscerate the argument 

from design4  ,it is nearly twenty years
 since ,i ventured to offer some remarks
 on this subject1 and as my arguments   
have as yet received no refutation1 ,i  
hope ,i may be excused for reproducing  
them4  ,i observed1 that the doctrine of
 ,evolution is the most formidable      
opponent of all the commoner and coarser
 forms of ,teleology4  ,but perhaps the 
most remarkable service to the          
,philosophy of ,biology rendered by ,mr4
 ,darwin is the reconciliation of       
,teleology and ,morphology1 and the     
explanation of the facts of both1 which 
his views offer4  ,the teleology which  
supposes that the eye1 such as we see it
 in man1 or one of the higher           
vertebrata1 was made with the precise   
structure it exhibits1 for the purpose  
of enabling the animal which possesses  
it to see1 has undoubtedly received its 
death-blow4 ,nevertheless1 it is        
necessary to remember that there is a   
wider teleology which is not touched by 
the doctrine of ,evolution1 but is      

actually based upon the fundamental     
proposition of ,evolution4 ,this        
proposition is that the whole world1    
living and not living1 is the result of 
the mutual interaction1 according to    
definite laws1 of the forces 7,i should 
now like to substitute the word powers  
for forces47 possessed by the molecules 
of which the primitive nebulosity of the
 universe was composed4  ,if this be    
true1 it is no less certain that the    
existing world lay potentially in the   
cosmic vapour1 and that a sufficient    
intelligence could1 from a knowledge of 
the properties of the molecules of that 
vapour1 have predicted1 say the state of
 the fauna of ,britain in #ahfi1 with as
 much certainty as one can say what will
 happen to the vapour of the breath on a
 cold winter's day444  444,the          
teleological and the mechanical views of
 nature are not1 necessarily1 mutually  
exclusive4  ,on the contrary1 the more  
purely a mechanist the speculator is1   
the more firmly does he assume a        

primordial molecular arrangement of     
which all the phenomena of the universe 
are the consequences1 and the more      
completely is he thereby at the mercy of
 the teleologist1 who can always defy   
him to disprove that this primordial    
molecular arrangement was not intended  
to evolve the phenomena of the universe4
  7,the ,genealogy of ,animals 7',the   
,academy1' #ahfi71 reprinted in         
',critiques and ,addresses4'7  ,the     
acute champion of ,teleology1 ,paley1   
saw no difficulty in admitting that the 
production of things may be the result  
of trains of mechanical dispositions    
fixed beforehand by intelligent         
appointment and kept in action by a     
power at the centre 7',natural          
,theology1' chapter xxiii471 that is to 
say1 he proleptically accepted the      
modern doctrine of ,evolution2 and his  
successors might do well to follow their
 leader1 or at any rate to attend to his
 weighty reasonings1 before rushing into
 an antagonism which has no reasonable  

foundation4  ,having got rid of the     
belief in chance and the disbelief in   
design1 as in no sense appurtenances of 
,evolution1 the third libel upon that   
doctrine1 that it is anti-theistic1     
might perhaps be left to shift for      
itself4  ,but the persistence with which
 many people refuse to draw the plainest
 consequences from the propositions they
 profess to accept1 renders it advisable
 to remark that the doctrine of         
,evolution is neither ,anti-theistic nor
 ,theistic4  ,it simply has no more to  
do with ,theism than the first book of  
,euclid has4  ,it is quite certain that 
a normal fresh-laid egg contains neither
 cock nor hen2 and it is also as certain
 as any proposition in physics or       
morals1 that if such an egg is kept     
under proper conditions for three weeks1
 a cock or hen chicken will be found in 
it4  ,it is also quite certain that if  
the shell were transparent we should be 
able to watch the formation of the young
 fowl1 day by day1 by a process of      

evolution1 from a microscopic cellular  
germ to its full size and complication  
of structure4  ,therefore ,evolution1 in
 the strictest sense1 is actually going 
on in this and analogous millions and   
millions of instances1 wherever living  
creatures exist4 ,therefore1 to borrow  
an argument from ,butler1 as that which 
now happens must be consistent with the 
attributes of the ,deity1 if such a     
,being exists1 ,evolution must be       
consistent with those attributes4  ,and1
 if so1 the evolution of the universe1  
which is neither more nor less          
explicable than that of a chicken1 must 
also be consistent with them4 ,the      
doctrine of ,evolution1 therefore1 does 
not even come into contact with ,theism1
 considered as a philosophical doctrine4
  ,that with which it does collide1 and 
with which it is absolutely             
inconsistent1 is the conception of      
creation1 which theological speculators 
have based upon the history narrated in 
the opening of the book of ,genesis4    

,there is a great deal of talk and not a
 little lamentation about the so-called 
religious difficulties which physical   
science has created4 ,in theological    
science1 as a matter of fact1 it has    
created none4  ,not a solitary problem  
presents itself to the philosophical    
,theist1 at the present day1 which has  
not existed from the time that          
philosophers began to think out the     
logical grounds and the logical         
consequences of ,theism4  ,all the real 
or imaginary perplexities which flow    
from the conception of the universe as a
 determinate mechanism1 are equally     
involved in the assumption of an        
,eternal1 ,omnipotent and ,omniscient   
,deity4  ,the theological equivalent of 
the scientific conception of order is   
,providence2 and the doctrine of        
determinism follows as surely from the  
attributes of foreknowledge assumed by  
the theologian1 as from the universality
 of natural causation assumed by the man
 of science4 ,the angels in ',paradise  

,lost' would have found the task of     
enlightening ,adam upon the mysteries of
 ,fate1 ,foreknowledge1 and ,free-will1 
not a whit more difficult1 if their     
pupil had been educated in a            
,real-schule and trained in every       
laboratory of a modern university4 ,in  
respect of the great problems of        
,philosophy1 the post-,darwinian        
generation is1 in one sense1 exactly    
where the prae-,darwinian generations   
were4  ,they remain insoluble4  ,but the
 present generation has the advantage of
 being better provided with the means of
 freeing itself from the tyranny of     
certain sham solutions4  ,the known is  
finite1 the unknown infinite2           
intellectually we stand on an islet in  
the midst of an illimitable ocean of    
inexplicability4  ,our business in every
 generation is to reclaim a little more 
land1 to add something to the extent and
 the solidity of our possessions4  ,and 
even a cursory glance at the history of 
the biological sciences during the last 

quarter of a century is sufficient to   
justify the assertion1 that the most    
potent instrument for the extension of  
the realm of natural knowledge which has
 come into men's hands1 since the       
publication of ,newton's ',principia1'  
is ,darwin's ',origin of ,species4'  ,it
 was badly received by the generation to
 which it was first addressed1 and the  
outpouring of angry nonsense to which it
 gave rise is sad to think upon4  ,but  
the present generation will probably    
behave just as badly if another ,darwin 
should arise1 and inflict upon them that
 which the generality of mankind most   
hate--the necessity of revising their   
convictions4  ,let them1 then1 be       
charitable to us ancients2 and if they  
behave no better than the men of my day 
to some new benefactor1 let them        
recollect that1 after all1 our wrath did
 not come to much1 and vented itself    
chiefly in the bad language of          
sanctimonious scolds4  ,let them as     
speedily perform a strategic            

right-about-face1 and follow the truth  
wherever it leads4  ,the opponents of   
the new truth will discover1 as those of
 ,darwin are doing1 that1 after all1    
theories do not alter facts1 and that   
the universe remains unaffected even    
though texts crumble4  ,or1 it may be1  
that1 as history repeats itself1 their  
happy ingenuity will also discover that 
the new wine is exactly of the same     
vintage as the old1 and that 7rightly   
viewed7 the old bottles prove to have   
been expressly made for holding it4