The presumption afforded by natural science we believe to be fully borne out by sacred Scripture, and we furthermore believe that the theory of Evolution, when understood simply as the method of the divine working, and not as a theory that banishes the Creator from his own Universe, will be found to explain more diffi culties in the Mosaic cosmogony than any other theory yet propounded. And yet it may not be true. We close as we began, by saying that this theory as well as any theory, must be accepted, if at all, only provisionally. Our purpose is to show that if it should hereafter be proved to be true, there is not only no cause for alarm, but on the contrary, cause for rejoicing at the removal of difficulties that up to this present time have closed about all theories of the interpretation of the Mosaic Cosmogony.

E. S. WILSON.

STUDIES IN DARWIN.

It is not our purpose to study Mr. Darwin in any of his relations to the Bible, nor from any position within the circle of either religion or theology. We deprecate, wholly, the mixing up of science and theology in any discussion of a scientific question. If a thing is demonstrated as a fact or truth in nature, it must be accepted in religion. If old opinions on theology are overturned by it, they must go; and the theologian must adapt his theories to the new issue of fact. Hence all endeavors to judge or prejudge scientific problems by their actual or presumed relations to religion, are absurd. They must be met on their own merit, as questions to be proved or disproven by the acknowledged principles of evidence in their own sphere.

But, on the other hand, science itself demands-and there can be no real science where this demand is not complied with-that nothing shall be imposed as truth, which is not fairly established by repeated experiments, or from such careful and continuous observation as shall place the answer beyond a reasonable doubt. It, properly, repudiates the acceptance of any mere opinions, without adequate proof, as valid authority. No name, however high, can stand as warrant for a theory, unless the evidence sustain the claim. It calls for ample testimony from unquestioned facts, before it acknowledge any principle as demonstrated.

The charge which modern science brings-and rightly—against the ancient schools is, that they invented theories, and forced their facts to suit their suppositions; and its own noble claim is, "nothing must be regarded as a demonstrated truth in science, unless derived by full induction from all the facts concerned, and itself be capable of embracing, and reasonably accounting for all the related facts."

Where these principles are not observed, there may be large knowledge of isolated phenomena, but there can be no true scientific conclusions, no valid induction. Neglect of them leads to the very evils, from which it is the highest boast of modern science to have delivered the thinking of the ages. And yet, a large part of what passes for science among us, is just this sort of jumping at conclusions, and then assuming these as demonstrated certainties; putting forth as scientific truth opinions which are so far from being proven by the testimony of concurring facts, that their supporters find it necessary to assume hypothesis on hypothesis to supplement the absence of the proof, they at the same time reasoning from these conjectures, with all the confidence of those who feel themselves possessors of unquestioned verities.

This attempt to prostitute the name of science to the service of the undemonstrated notions of one or another learned man is doubly dangerous; not only nor mainly from the falsity of the conclusions which may in any individual case result from it; but, chiefly, because it is essentially a false and vicious method; one which, under the pretense of reasoning, teaches an utter disregard of all the true principles of reasoning, and while calling itself science, is actually destructive of the very basis of philosophical induction and the laws of scientific evidence.

Now, in the name of science-not of theology or religion-we protest against this method. Whatever science demonstrates,, we stand as theologians ready to accept. All that we ask of men claiming to speak with the authority of science is, that our assent shall not be challenged for anything as scientifically certain, unless the proposition, or asserted truth has been established by the application of at least the ordinary laws of reasoning, and proven under the conditions of the universally accepted principles of scientific evidence.

Whatever does not come thus guarded, has no claim to speak of itself, or to be spoken of as science. It may be a learned collection of interesting facts. It may awaken thought, and stimulate inquiry by its foreshadowing of truths to be hereafter demonstrated; but it is not entitled to any place or value as among the realities of science, unless the conclusions of its reasoning follow, by the known laws of logic, from the premises; and the

facts adduced all go, either to support the inferences or to be accounted for by them.

Our purpose in this paper is to try some of the positions of Mr. Darwin on the means and method of the evolution of the animated universe, according to these principles. To apply to them the test of the well known laws of reasoning and evidence; and to inquire how far his conclusions follow, coherently, from his own premises, and from the facts he has presented in support

of them.

There is great difficulty in grasping distinctly the precise points of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis. These are nowhere shaped into a consistent whole, and definitely stated. What seems asserted in one place is so qualified as to lose much of its clearness in another; and a still larger portion is implied, and left to be conveyed by inference; so that it is often scarcely possible to know just what it is that he does mean to teach. It is, perhaps, this very vagueness, which, combined with his vast array of curious and interesting facts, has given him so strong a hold upon the popular mind. There is so much in every portion of his writings that is true, so many things that are incontrovertible, that a large number of his readers select these only, and, without any thought of the coherence of his system as a whole, or even without knowing really what that system is, proclaim themselves followers of Mr. Darwin, and think they actually agree with him.

We shall endeavor to avoid as much as possible this vagueness; and, while not forcing upon Mr. Darwin any consequences which lie outside the sphere of science, and which he might disclaim, we shall lay down, as fairly as we can, the actual premises which he does assume, or which he necessarily implies in all his reasoning, and hold ourself and him closely and rigidly to his own conditions. The references and quotations will be marked "O.S." (Origin of Species) and "D. M." (Descent of Man).

Mr. Darwin's professed object in his "Origin of Species" was, p. 18, "to show that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."

Had he limited his speculations to this narrow range, they would have been of comparatively little interest; nor would they have excited any thought beyond the special circle of those directly

occupied in the details of Zoological study. But the principles on which he endeavors to account for the descent (it ought rather to be called ascent) of the various existing species from anterior forms, and the illustrations he employs, led to the inference that he designed his theory to apply to all organic life which now is, or ever has been on the earth. That in the same way as each of the present species has been derived from some precedent form, so this in its turn and in the same way came from another; and so on down, in a continuous line of being, through all the simpler grades of life to "some original primordial form or germ," or perhaps several of these germs. And hence that the whole universe of organic life, both plants and animals, has all been produced, in all its various forms and modes, as the result of one all pervading and continuous style of operation, which he has now discovered and demonstrated to the world as the supreme outcome of modern scientific study.

This, which at first was but an inference, is in the conclusion of the volume, p. 432, distinctly avowed as the accepted consequence of the adoption of his principle.

I believe that all animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype, but analogy may be a deceitful guide. On the principle of natural selec tion with divergence of character, it does not seem incredible, that from some low and intermediate form, both animals and plants may have been developed; and if we admit this we must likewise admit that all the organic beings which have ever lived upon the earth may be descended from some one primordial form.

*

*

The propositions here put forth are only stated (it is true) as something "not incredible;" but they are so essentially involved in every part of Mr. Darwin's reasonings, that a large portion of his facts are cited for the purpose of establishing the connecting links, as he regards them, between the different forms of the animal and vegetable existences. Nor can there be any doubt, we think, that these are his profound convictions as to the origin of all the animated universe. And the whole tenor of his writings. shows that in his view, as in our own, the real point of interest is, not merely how the specific characters of any given plant or animal had been modified; but is "the principle on which he