LIVERPOOL GEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

4th December, 1882.

At the Ordinary Meeting, held this date, at the Free Library, MR. HENRY BRAMALL, M. Inst. C.E., President, in the Chair, the following were elected as Members :—

Messrs. Harold Kirkmann, B. Swinton Biram, B.A., and J. M. Williams.

Proposed as Members :

Messrs. H. C. Banister, Rossett Road, Crosby; Wm. H. Davies, jun., 55, Great Newton Street, Liverpool.

DONATIONS.

་་

Geikie's "Geological Sketches"; Huxley's "American Addresses," presented by Miss L. Williams; Geikie's "Text Book of Geology,' presented by Mr. T. R. Connell; Ball's " Economic Geology of India,"presented by Mr. T. S. Hunt; Medlicott and Blandford's Geology of India," vols. I and II, with large Geological Map,-presented by Mr. William H. Walker; Darwin's "Voyage of the Beagle." Hugh Miller's "Cruise of the Betsy."-presented by Mr. Charles E. Miles; Conybeare and Phillip's "Geology of England ;" Page's " Geology "and" Illustrated Geology,"-presented by Mr. F. P. Marrat; Transactions," Parts 1 and 2, vol. 17, Manchester Geological Society,-from the Society.

64

The following Paper was read:

"SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF SPECIES,"

BY HUGH FERGIE HALL, F.G.S.

I have been asked to give you a Paper on the theory of the Origin and Evolution of Species, as proposed by Mr. Darwin.

Vol. III. Session 1882-83. No. 8.

Before entering on this subject, I desire to make some general observations which appear to me to be necessary in discussing this theory. And I would disclaim any merit but that of presenting to you in as succinct a form as possible, views which have commended themselves to my own mind as tending to show that that theory is not worthy to be regarded as scientifically reliable.

In the first place I would remind you, that brain power in different individuals, is shown not only in greatly varied degrees, but in very varied forms. In some, it takes the form of being able to make accurate observations of the phenomena that come under their notice, and in others of the power to sort and classify such phenomena. Others again, it enables to deduce from the records of such phenomena, the causes to which they are due. Each in his own particular sphere may be great, but it is rare to find men who combine in their own persons all these varieties of power. Hence it is not always safe to receive the reasonings of an observer, any more than to accept the observations of a reasoner, whose knowledge of phenomena may be insufficient.

None can be more fully sensible than myself of the dignity of science, when that is as it should be "truth ascertained that which we know ; and when it is followed by its disciples in a right spirit, viz.: the pursuit of knowledge or truth for its own sake. To be one of such a class of men is to my mind one of the noblest aspirations that can take hold of the mind and heart of any man, and to attain a position. among them I take to be one of the greatest honors to which the noblest minds can attain. But while I hold this I have had so strongly forced upon my attention some views called scientific in the present day, which seem to me to tend to the degradation of true science, that I feel sure you will receive with attention what I conceive to be "The attitude in which scientific truth should be received," in order, if possible, that we may guard against mistakes which, though easily fallen into, frequently take generations to undo. That the truth in physical science, as in other things, will eventually prevail, I for one

have not the slightest doubt; but the way in which new views, whether of phenomena or of reasoning, are received, must largely influence not only the acceptance of ascertained truth by the non-scientific world; but the time when such truth will prevail will arrive more rapidly, or be delayed, by the course which scientific men pursue in their own acceptance and promulgation of it.

I need hardly remind you that Science is the knowledge of facts, relating to the phenomena of any given subject. In a larger sense it includes philosophy, which is the knowledge of the causes of such phenomena, the general principles and laws which underlie them. It is evident therefore that there may be two sources of error; first, the acceptance of so-called facts stated upon imperfect observation and cxpcrience; and second, the acceptance of causes, principles or laws deduced. from such imperfect or careless observation, or from an insufficient acquaintance with the facts from which such laws are deduced, or others modifying them. Men of the most exalted powers, both of observation and reasoning, are always liable to error, both from imperfect knowledge of facts and imperfect powers of reasoning. Following upon these there are other sources of error, among which may be mentioned the delight which men of lively imagination feel in allowing it too free play, without the restraint of accurate reasoning; and the enjoyment we all find in receiving new ideas, which leads to the acceptance of the "new" (if it have any show of reasonableness) without taking the trouble to carefully investigate whether the new ideas will stand the test of observation, experience and reason. It becomes us then most carefully to guard against all these causes of error, inasmuch as we know that the accumulated facts are yet few compared with what we may hope to know; and in this condition of things, we are more liable to the abuse of the imagination to which I have referred. Knowing that the opportunities of any individual observer are necessarily few, and the time during which his individual study of a science can be carried out is short, even if he attain to the utmost limits to which the life of man

can stretch, it is much more delightful to allow the imagination to run riot, than to be content to wait for further light to the slow observation of new facts and the quiet thoughtful reasoning upon the whole range of facts, radiating most probably in numerous directions from any given centre of thought, from which alone we can expect true causes to be ascertained. The processes of mind are so subtle, and so largely influenced by preconceived opinions, derived from many quarters -historical, religious, mental, personal-that it is a matter of very great difficulty to overturn a false principle. And the difficulty is greater because these false principles take hold of a much larger circle of the human race than the scientific class from whom they sprung. Multitudes receive the teachings of the leaders of science of their day, who have themselves little or no conception of the foundations of the opinions they hold; and, from the very indefiniteness of their views, they are always ready to put aside a difficulty with the reflection, that they don't know enough about the subject to be sure that it is a difficulty, and that the propounder of the opinion, which may seem erroneous, must have given such attention to the subject, that the probability is that their difficulty would turn out no difficulty if they could only nse his greater knowledge in looking at it.

We also find errors frequently arising from the endeavour to account for many different results from one cause alone, forgetting how many influences may be brought to bear even upon one result, and how largely many forces influence and modify one another. "One key will not fit every lock" is a useful proverb for the followers of physical science to bear in mind, if they desire to avoid mistakes in themselves and others.

But I have said that, among other sources of error, may be mentioned the delight which men of lively imagination feel in allowing it free play, without the restraint of accurate reasoning; and the enjoyment found in the reception of new ideas, which leads to the acceptance of the "new" if it have any show of reasonableness, without taking the trouble to carefully investigate whether the new ideas will stand the test of

observation, experience, and reason. The former explains the facility with which such theories may be propounded, the latter the readiness with which they may be received.

This I take to be illustrated in the Darwinian theory of Evolution as developed in his "Origin of Species," which appears to be one of the most remarkable exhibitions that has ever been given of the use (or shall I not rather say the abuse?) of the imagination, in building up a theory which to my mind is so utterly defective in accurate reasoning, that the wonder is that so many scientific men have ventured to receive it. It seems to upset the evidence of design, and the arguments to be deduced therefrom as to the origin of life, and the being of an allwise, intelligent, and loving Creator and Ruler of the world. I shall endeavour, as well as I am able, first to give a short view of the theory and of the argument used to support it, and then to show where I consider its weakness and want of reliability lies.

The laws acting around us, says Mr. Darwin, are Growth with Reproduction-Inheritance which is almost implied by Reproduction-Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse- a ratio of increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of character, and the Extinction of less improved Forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.

His book opens by giving an account of Variation under Domestication, as illustrated by the domestic fowl, the pigeon, the ox, the sheep, the dog, &c. He asserts a difficulty in defining the difference between a variety and a species, and that species are only what he calls permanent varieties. He affirms that in the wild state variability is as constant from natural selection, as under domestication; and that wide ranging, much diffused, and common species, vary most, and that the forms of life now dominant tend to become still more dominant. He affirms a struggle for existence not only between in