APPENDICES. APPENDIX A, PAGE 19. Plutarch records of Sylla, who preceded Ovid by about half a century, that on his return from the Mithridatic war, as he was passing the Oracle called "Nymphæum," near Apollonia, there was brought before him a Satyr, which had been taken asleep, "exactly such as statuaries and painters represent to us." When Sylla questioned him in many languages who and what he was, "he could utter nothing intelligible; his accent being harsh and inarticulate, something between the neighing of a horse and the bleating of a goat. Sylla was shocked at his appearance, and ordered him to quit his presence.' From which we may conclude that 'Satyrs," the creation of the ancient poets, were something like the missing link between man and beast, according to the Darwinian theory! APPENDIX B, PAGE 29. Max Müller's Science of Language, 177, 8; 5th edition. In the 8th edition of the same work, Max Müller wisely observed that "Lord Monboddo admits that as yet no animal has been discovered in the possession 252 APPENDICES. If, therefore, the science of of language. language establishes a frontier between man and the brute which can never be removed, it would seem to possess peculiar claims on the attention of all who consider it their duty to enter their manly protest against a revival of the shallow theories of Lord Monboddo" (vol. i., p. 15). APPENDIX C, PAGE 31. Lamarck, Phil. Zoolog., vol. ii., pp. 443, &c. The Rev. John Duns, F.R.S.E., in his Biblical Natural Science, has remarked on Lamarck's theory of a small gelatinous body being transformed into an oak or an ape and an orang-outang, after having been evolved out of a monad, slowly developing itself into the attributes and dignity of man, that "it would be hard to say whether the folly or the blasphemy in this system is greater" (vol. i., p. 545). APPENDIX D, PAGE 46. As a specimen of the scientific jargon current in the present day, I quote the words of Professor KÖLLIKERS on the subject of Agamogenesis, or "Alternate Generation," of which he writes as follows, commencing with the usual Darwinian Ir: "IF a Bipannaria, a Brachialaria, a Pluteus, is competent to produce the Echinoderm, which is so widely different from it; IF a hydroid polype can produce the higher Medusa; IF the Vermiform Trematode ' nurse can develop within itself the very unlike Cercaria, it will not appear impossible that the egg, or ciliated embryo, of a spunge for once, under special conditions, might become a hydroid polype, or the embryo of a Medusa, an Echinoderm." !!! Professor Huxley, in his Lay Sermons, p. 341, opposes this view. APPENDIX E, PAGE 53. Origin of Species, p. 186. The late Lord Chancellor Hatherly, in a letter to the author of All the Articles of the Darwinian Faith, says 6 "I believe your mode of treating the preposterous fictions of Darwin is the only way to shake the selfconfident tone of would-be philosophers. Newton's grandest saying, after 'Deus non est Eternitas sed Æternus,' was Hypotheses non fingo.' Newton kept back his Principia for years, because a mistake had been made in an arc of the meridian, so closely did he keep to experimental truth. Now the crude fancy, nothing like so ingenious as the Ptolemaic cycles, because the Darwin fancy stumbles at every step, is exalted to a rank exceeding that of the discovery of gravitation. In a clever sermon by Pritchard, Savilian Professor at Oxford, preached before the British Association, he exposes the folly of this stuff, and proves that the chances against the eye being formed by development are more in number than Darwin's work being taken by the printer to pieces and tumbled into a bag, and then thrown back on the table in the same order that they came." |