creation hypothesis. Or seek to "picture to yourself definitely" the coming together of the atoms of Darwin's "one primordial form," and the "breathing of life into " it, we are just as much at a loss.

The difficulty of "picturing definitely the process" of the origin of the living creature, does not lie in the size or number of the organisms originated, but in the simple fact of such origination,—it is something utterly outside of our observation or experience (the two eyes of science); the modus operandi must ever remain a mystery to us, and utterly beyond our power to "picture definitely to ourselves the process." Darwinism lends us no aid here, and consequently has in this particular no special claim to our favor.

The second tendency thrusting the mind toward the Darwinian view of the origin of terrestrial life, species, etc., is (that so strong to-day) the spirit of generalization, of unifying under law, of referring all phenomena to regularly operating irrational immanent force in matter. But whether we should accept this dogma-all force working in the universe of matter irrational immanent force-and carry this up even to that exceptional manifestation of power-the originating of life and species as a prejudging element in our scientific formulating, may justly be questioned. If there is more in the universe than were matter, and immanent irrational force in matter, genuine science will not, without reason, illuminate nor ignore that "more" in its investigation of the origin of phenomena. Both the originators of Darwinism concede the existence of this "more"; and says Huxley: "When the materialists stray beyond the borders of their path, and begin to talk about there being nothing else in the universe but matter and force and necessary laws, and all the rest of their 'grenadiers,' I decline to follow them." Huxley thinks there may be something "more." Says Herbert Spencer: 2 "The hypotheses of special creatio and development, alike recognize an inscrutable cause of phenomena." If this "cause" is "inscrutable," it may be "more" than irrational immanent force. As genuine scientists, then, we are not to blink this "more" in formulating of the phenomena of the universe-it may have significance for such formulating; we are to rid our minds of prejudice against its activity in originating phenomena, we are not to prejudge, it may have been active-a force here-nor must we prejudge the methods nor extent of its activity; if it be " inscrutable,' we are not hastily to dogmatize on its methods and extents; an intelligent force it may have operated through some general law in the development of the creatures of earth, but not by the method of "natural selection." As says Spencer:

The point at issue [between special creation and development] is, how this inscrutable cause has worked in the production of living forms. This point, if it is to be decided at all, is to be decided only by the examination of evidence. Let us inquire which hypothesis is most congruous with established facts.

To this I shall now address myself. Darwin thinks: "The Creator originally breathed life into a few forms, or into one; and that while this planet has gone cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved." On the contrary, it is generally believed: 1. Many forms were "originally" created by God; and 2, that species are not transmutable; that every species is, therefore, a special creation, and this (if possible) still more strongly of genera, families, orders, etc. What says scientific fact of the transmutation of species?

No animal nor vegetable organism has ever been observed to put on the characteristics of a new species. Darwinists concede this. Says Herbert Spencer: "The facts at present assignable in direct proof that, by progressive modifications, races [species] of organisms that are apparently distinct, may result from antecedent races [species] of organisms, are not sufficient." So Huxley: "It is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characteristics exhibited by a species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural." The great body of men of science not only affirm that transmutation of species has never been observed, but maintain it has never occurred, and can never occur, as the laws of nature now are. This objection to Darwinism Huxley regards very strong, and says: "As the case stands at present, this 'little rift within the lute' is not to be disguised nor overlooked."

That neither animals nor vegetables of different species, intercrossing, produce a permanently fertile progeny, is an almost universally acknowledged law among naturalists. Among animals, hybrids seldom propagate at all. When a hybrid does propagate, it is generally with an animal of pure blood; but the race soon becomes extinct,— does not generally (when confined to the hybrids breeding (inter se) reach beyond the third generation with the most competent. This crucial test of diversity of species has never been observed in varieties springing up (naturally nor artificially) within a well-defined species; all these varieties, however they may vary in form, e. g., the horse, hog, or in both form and instinct, e. g., the dog, the pigeon, are fertile, 1 Species, 437, 5th ed., 1872.

F

and propagate a permanently fertile progeny, when crossed with the other varieties of the species from which they sprung. They thus lack the crucial test of diversity of species. Speaking of this objection to Darwin's theory of the transmutation of species, Huxley says: “A true physical cause [selection as creator of new species] is admitted to be such only on one condition,-that it shall account for all the phenomena which come within the range of its operation. If it fails to explain any one phenomenon, it is so far weak, so far to be suspected." And he claims that this weakness and suspicion must attach to Darwin's hypothesis, "so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile, and their progeny are fertile with one another. For, so long, selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do all that is required of it, to produce natural species."

Embryology. Some think foetal transformations present an argument for the development hypothesis. The brain, e. g., of the mammal, it is claimed, assumes at an early stage the form found in the fish, later that of the reptile, later still, that of the bird, finally at birth, takes the form of the brain of the adult mammalia. These changes correspond to that of the geological record, viz., first the reign of fish, then the reptile, bird, mammal. Indicative this, it is urged, of the transformations through which man has passed in the geological periods. But to attain even the low rank of an analogical argument, the one who urges it must point out some spot in the universe where an adult fish becomes a reptile, a reptile a bird, etc.; he might then say: "Perhaps it has been even thus on our earth,” but this he does not do, and he has, therefore, no reason to present us with even his "perhaps."

Moreover, these foetal transformations do not resemble so markedly the past scale of life-fish, reptile, etc.-as some suppose. In the first place, these resemblances only relate to some organ or part of the foetus at a time. Again:1

The first set of germinal membranes are those of the organs proper to the animal life, the nervous system and organs of motion; but, according to the hypothesis, they ought to be some vegetable resemblances. Again, the first indication of the embryo is the primitive trace, the rudiment of a back bone, and of a continuous spinal cord; whereas, according to the hypothesis, it should have been something assimilating the embryo to the avertebral classes,-radiata, mollusca, and articulata, but these three entire classes are passed over without any corresponding foetal type. All foetal transformations are confined strictly to forms in

1 Harris' "Pre-Adamite Earth."

the range of the creature's own type,-the vertebrate never resembles at any stage of its growth anything but a vertebrate; so of the articulate, mollusk, radiate. But, by the hypothesis, the vertebrate ought to have exhibited the phases in succession of radiate, mollusk, etc., and so of the articulate, etc. Again, as to the heart of the foetus of a mammal, it does not pass through the form which is permanent in the amphibia, but it does pass through a form not found permanent in any known creature. The hearts of birds and mammals do not pass through forms which are permanent in fishes and reptiles. And the development of the brain is marked by corresponding differences.

Agassiz denies that these foetal transformations gives any support to the Darwinian hypothesis; but claims that:

Looked at in their intellectual significance, they truly reveal the unity of organic conception, of which man himself is a part; and mark not only the incipient steps in its manifestation, but also, with equal distinctness, every phase in its gradual realization. They mean that when the first fish was called into existence, the vertebrate type existed as a whole in the creative thought, and the first expression of it embraced. potentially all the organic elements of the type, up to man himself; these embryonic resemblances speak only of an ideal relation, existing not in the things themselves, but in the mind that made them.

This is also Whewell's observation on these resemblances. What say geologic facts on the transmutation of species? Geologic facts plainly declare that there has been a progress in organisms, In the earliest epochs the lower types, in the later epochs the higher types were predominant. But we do not find in the geologic record low gelatinous, homogeneous forms of a species, then the (apparently from these) partially developed, yet aborted higher individual, imperfect in organization, apparently aiming at something it has not yet reached,-illy adapted to its circumstances of condition; then (in concatenated progression), the perfectly developed individual of the species; then this highly developed type passing over into a new species, and thence onward into a new genus, family, etc. Not a trace of such process of development is found in the rock-book. And yet, just such process of development many suppose geology exhibits; and just such process of development must geology exhibit, before it becomes auxiliary to the hypothesis of the transmutation of species by natural selection. But, on the contrary, we find in the first traces of organic life-although it may be of low family typea perfect type of the species; the individual admirably adapted to the special conditions of its existence, often the earlier species of higher type than the later species of the same genus.

The marine fucoids we may take as the earliest appearing and lowest

order of flora. Seas, in the early epochs, largely possessed the land. Upon the first appearance of the land flora, it bears no evidence of being a gradual development of the fucoids, but it appears all at once perfect, and of a higher development in its individuals of the same orders, than found in the present day. The early ferns and clubmosses, and the horse-tail family, e. g., attained the height of forest trees. Inferior orders of plants were developed in those ages, as we now see them. "They took their place," says Miller, "not as now, among the pigmies and abortions of creation, but among its tallest and goodliest productions." As early as the carboniferous period, all the now-existing forms of vegetable tissue appear. Speaking of the fruits of the exogenous conifera of this period, Dr. Hooker says: "They belong to a highly-developed type, exhibiting extensive modifications of elementary organs for the purpose of their adaptation to special functions, and these modifications are as great, and the adaptations as special, as any to be found amongst analagous fruits in the existing vegetable world." So Lyell says of the flora of this period: "The fossil conifera and plants of this order here found, lay claim to so high a place in vegetable life, as to preclude us from characterizing it carboniferous flora as consisting of imperfectly developed plants." So the Edinburgh Review: "The carboniferous flora displays the most magnificent specimens of creative power, resembling the noblest pines of the South Sea Islands, rivalling existing species in the complexity of their organization, and surpassing them in the scale of development."

So much for the grade of the early flora of the rock record; now as to the early fauna. As in the flora, were Darwinian transmutation of species in nature, we should expect to find first the fucoids, and thence to our day a concatenated upward movement of species, genera, etc. So in the fauna we should expect to find a similar movement,— first the lowest type of life, the radiates, then some slight development; and, after indefinite periods, the higher types,-molusks, articulates, vertebrates. The stone-book has another record. Professor Agassiz notes, in his Zoology, that the old theory that

Animals were successively created in the order of their relative per, fection, so that the most ancient formation contained only animals of the lowest grade, e. g., polyps, echinoderns, to which succeeded mollusks, then the articulated animals, and last of all the vertebrates, is now untenable; since fossils belonging to each of the four departments have been found in the fossiliferous deposits of every age. In the lower Silurian formation there exist not only polyps and other radiata, but also numerous mollusks, and trilobites (articulata), and even fishes [vertebrata].