Full text of "Scientific sophisms. A review of current theories concerning atoms, apes, and men"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

* •

Ti, .

*>.

*■/;

■J'l

■'.'

SCIENTIFIC SOPHISMS.

'>•«:

:^^-

•"-.

♦i.

"The true Shekinah is Man." — Chrysostom,

"If a man is a materialist, we Germans think he is not edu-
cated, "—/'r^. Tholuck,

"It is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible." — Prof.
Huxley,

SCIENTIFIC SOPHISMS.

A RE VIE W OF CURRENT THEORIES
CONCERNING ATOMS, APES, AND MEN

SAMUEL WAINWRIGHT, D.D.,

author of
"christian certainty," "the modern avernus," etc.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

MDCCCLXXXI.

}lj9 .

KJM .

Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frome, and London.

CONTENTS.

fAGK

Analytical Outline vii

I.
The Right of Search i

II.
Evolution u

III.
"A Puerile Hypothesis" 33

IV.
"Scientific Levity" 45

V.
A House of Cards 61

VI.
Sophisms 75

VII.
Protoplasm 99

VIII.
The Three Beginnings 149

vi Contents.

' IX.
The Three Barriers 169

PAGE

X.
Atoms 187

XI.
Apes 203

XII.
Men

• . • .

225

XIII.
Anima Mundi 251

Appendix 299

ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
The Right of Search.

Agnosticism : and
Gnosticism :

Its Pretensions.
Prof. Clifford—

His "Ethics of Religion";

His new divinity.
Prof. Tyndall—

His assumptions ;

His admissions.
Their relation to
Materialistic Atheism :
Is it true ?
Is it demonstrable ?
Is it Scientific ?

CHAPTER II.

Evolution.

Evolution :
Theories of :
Three main varieties :

The Theistic,
The Atheistic,
The Agnostic.
Their relation to the doctrine of

vii

viii Analytical Outline of Contents^

Development :

Mr. Darwin's ** view " ; and his Opinion.

His ** opinion " may be questioned ; and
His "view" has not been shown to be true.
Is strongly Theistic,
Is shown by Professor Mivart to be

** Not The Origin of Species," and
"Not antagonistic to Christianity."
The Theistic Doctrine of Evolution :

(Its three main Varieties)
Maintained by Mr. Darwin ; but
Opposed by Professors Huxley and Tyndall.
Prof.Tyndall "abandons," once for all "the conception
of creative acts."
Prof. Huxley excludes " the intervention of any but what
are termed secondary causes."
Evolution :

As strictly defined.
As popularly understood.
The validity of the Facts

Independent of every Theory as to their Cause.
The Phenomenal Sequence,

Not the Ideal Hypothesis,
A Universal Law.
The Ideal Hypothesis, which

"Derives man in his totality from the inter-
action of organism and environment through
countless ages past."

CHAPTER III.

"A Puerile Hypothesis."

Evolution :

" Baldest of all philosophies "
Involves two points.
I. AscENSivE Development :
Negatived by

"The positively ascertained truths of Palaeon-
tology."

Analytical Outline of Contents. ix

II. The Transmutation of Species.

" Not Proven " (Prof. Huxley).
" Of direct and positive testimony "
"There is no fragment whatever " (Dr. Elam).
Mr. Darwin's admissions

" Fatal " to his theory
Condenmed by Prof. Mivart.

CHAPTER IV.

"Scientific Levity."

Agnostic Evolution :

An Unverified Hypothesis

Based on two subordinate h3rpotheses

Equally unverified,
(i) Spontaneous Generation.
(2) The Transmutation of Species.
Spontaneous Generation.

** Does life grow out of dead matter ? " (Prof. Whewell. )
** It is a result absolutely inconceivable.'* (Mr. Darwin.)
** Not supported by any evidence." (Dr. Carpenter.)
" Scientific Levity." (Humboldt.)
From Matter to Life :

The attempts to bridge the chasm

Have all failed.
The "nucleated vesicle "

Is on the wrong side of the gulf.
The " chemico-electric operation "

Is a mere "supposition."
The " Protogenes of Haeckel," and

Dr. Elam's refutation of Mr. Spencer.
The "line of demarcation

between the organic and the inorganic

Is as wide as ever."
Chemistry : Its century of triumphs.

Its one conspicuous Failure. Hence

X Analytical Outline of Contents.

Spontaneous Generation is

"An astounding hypothesis " (Dr. Carpenter)
"Vitiated by error " (Prof. Tyndall), and

" Utterly discredited." (Virchow.)

CHAPTER V.
A House of Cards.

Agnostic Evolution : Not scientifically true.

" A flimsy framework of hypotheses." (Dr. Elam.)
Devoid of " experimental demonstration." (Tyndall.)

Its Fundamental Proposition :

Condemned by Scientific Authorities

"The older and honoured chiefs in Natural Science ;"

(Darwin. )
"A minority of minds of high calibre and culture."

(Tyndall.)

The New Syllogisms :

" Probable " ; " provisional " ; ** uncertain."
" Reason to suppose ; " (Mr. Spencer)

" I can imagine :" (Prof. Tyndall)

"It is conceivable." (Mr. Darwin)

CHAPTER VI.
Sophisms.

I. Prof. Haeckel's Genealogy :

Its hypothetical completeness : Dependent on

Its Continuity — "in nubibus."

Refuted by Du Bois Reymond.
His Fundamental Postulates :

Incapable of Proof.

Monera ; Gastreada ; Amphioxus.
Accepted by Mr. Huxley. And yet

Mr. Huxley admits that

The doctrine of Evolution involves the assump-
tion of

Spontaneous Generation ; while this last has
" No experimental evidence in its favour.'*

Supported by "no valid or intelligible reason."

Analytical Outline of Contents. xi

II. Biogenesis :

Harvey, and Francesco Redi.
Paradoxical position of Mr. Huxley.

(1) As a Biogenist, he holds that

** All living matter has sprung from pre-existing
living matter."

(2) As an Abiogenist, he thinks that

Life may ''some day be artificially brought
together."

(3) He thinks this has never yet been done. But yet

(4) If he had been living in the remote Past

He should expect to have seen it done.

III. Prof. Tyndall's Fallacies

(i) The " impulse inherent in primeval man."

(2) " The possible play of molecules in a cool-

ing planet."

(3) " Physical theories beyond the pale of ex-

perience."

(4) His imagining the unimaginable.

(a) The passage from physics to conscious-
ness

Is " unthinkable." And yet he says
{p) ** By an intellectual necessity

I cross the boundary."

(5) He tells us of

{fl) ''The chasm between the two classes

of phenomena."
{Jf) He declares this chasm to be

** Intellectually impassable " ; and yet
(c) He proclaims his belief in

" The Continuity of Nature."

(6) The Continuity of an "impassable chasm"

(a) A chasm ''intellectually impassable";

and yet

(b) ** By an intellectual necessity "
He crosses it.

IV. The Homers of Modem Materialism

Buchner, Oken, Haeckel, Huxley.
— quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus."

xii Analytical Outline of Contents.

CHAPTER VII.

Protoplasm.

Origin of the word.

The Physiological Cell Theory.
The several stages which marked the
Application of the word.

Dujardin, Von Mohl, Cohn, Remak, Max Schultze.
Prof. Huxley^s employment of it to denote
•* The Physical Basis of Life : "

**The one kind of matter which is common to all

living beings," and
Ultimately resolvable into the same chemical con-
stituents.
Ulterior Assumptions :

By which Protoplasm, From being the " basis "

Becomes the ** Matter of Life."
That all organisms consist alike of the same "matter

of life."
That this " matter of life " is due to Chemistry alone.
That all the activities of life, —

Thought, Conscience, Will,
Arise solely from, —

* * The arrangement of the mo-
lecules of ordinary matter."
Materialism of Mr. Huxley's doctrine.

In what sense disavowed by him.
Refuted by Dr. Stirling.

His admission, that "Most undoubtedly the terms
of his propositions are distinctly materialistic.*'
jE.^., "The thoughts to which I am now giving
utterance, and your thoughts regarding them,
are but the expression of molecular changes in
that matter of life which is the source of our
other vital phenomena."
Mr. Huxley's doctrine, then, is "distinctly material-
istic "
But,—

Analytical Outline of Contents, xiii

Is IT True ?

** I know of no form of negation sufficiently explicit,
comprehensive, and emphatic, in which to reply
to this question." {Dr, Elam)
I. It is in no sense true that Protoplasm "breaks up,"
as Prof. Huxley says it does.
II. (CO2), (HjO), and (NH3) cannot, by any combination,
be brought to represent

C36H35N4O10, which is the equivalent of protein,
• or protoplasm.

III. It is not true that when carbonic acid, water, and

ammonia disappear,

An "equivalent weight of the matter of life"
makes its appearance.

IV. In the two processes which Mr. Huxley regards as

identical

(t.^., the formation of water and of protoplasm)
" There is no resemblance whatever."
V. The proposition that Life is a product of Protoplasm

Is demonstrably untrue.
VI. The proposition that life is a property of Protoplasm
Is equally untrue.

(Contrast between **aquosity " and "vitality.")
VII. Martinus Scriblerus Redivivus.

The * * development " of meat-jacks.
VIII. The identity of Protoplasm, "living or dead,"
Assumed by Mr. Huxley.
Denied by the Germans.

Involves a whole train of Effects without a Cause.
IX. The fulcrum on which Mr. Huxley's Protoplasmic
Materialism rests
Is a single inference
From a chemical analogy.
This analogy has two references, and fails in both

of them.
The relation of the organic [protoplasm] to the

inorganic [water]
Is not an analogy, but an antithesis.
The gulf between Death and Life.

xiv Analytical Outline of Contents,

X. Tne entire Theory

Summed up in two Propositions.
" Protoplasm is the clay of the Potter "
The bricks are the same (says Mr. Huxley)

Because the clay is the same.
But—

Is the clay the same ?

Can it be identified ? as Mr. Huxley affirms.
Examination of the alleged three-fold unity, Faculty,

Form, Substance.
Instead of ** identity " there is

** An infinite diversity."
XI. Protoplasm not convertible

As alleged by Mr. Huxley.
Functions, too, are inconvertible, and

are
Independent of mere chemical com-
position.
XII. As of the Bricks, then, so of the Clay :

It i^ not identical
It is not convertible
It includes —
•* An Infinitude of various Kinds."

XIII. Mr. Huxley's Variations :

A complete Revolution of Opinion.

XIV. His "subtle influences"

Invoked to supersede ** Vitality."
The Bases of Physical Life«(?)
The Physical Basis of Life
Cf. " The iron basis of the candle," with
** The basis of the iron candle " !
XV. His Refutation by Dr. Beale.

"I doubt if in the whole range of
modem science it would be possible
to find an assertion more at variance
with facts familiar to physiologists."
XVI. His former maintenance of

" Vitality " and ** Inertia."
XVII. Dogmatism of his assertions : Contrasted with Magni-
tude of his admissions.

Analytical Outline of Contents, xv

XVIII. Dr. £lam*s exposure of his Chemistry.

** Professor Huxley^s * Chemistry of
Life ' has no foundation except that
of deliberate and reiterated assertion."
XIX. "Exoretuo."

That such verbal hocus-pocus should be re-
ceived as science will one day be regarded as
evidence of the low stale of intelligence in the
nineteenth century.'*

CHAPTER VIII.
The Three Beginnings.

Evolution not Eternal.

The "First Beginnings" (Lucretius).
Importance of the Fact :

There was ** a first start "

There was more than one.

1. I. Matter.

How ? Where ? "Whence ? did it Begin ?
Its Nature
Its Properties
Its Powers

From what Source acquired ?

** In the Beginning? "
**The Atoms eternally falling."

Why "falling?"

In an eternity "not eternal."
What Force was that which moved them ?
What Will was that which directed them ?

2. Force :

Operating in a given Order : and
Controlled by ** Definite Laws."
Order : Force : Law :

How came they to Begin ?

3. " Mutual Interaction :

Of the molecules of the Primitive Nebulosity "
The sole and exclusive cause of "the whole world ;
living and not living."

xvi Analytical Outline of Contents.

Whenihese assumptions have been granted :

That the Nebulosity was real

That it was Primitive

That its constitutent molecules were not all imaginary

That the existing world is the result of their interaction
Then, the first question is more urgent than before :
** In The Beginning : " What was that

4. First Cause :

Equal, not only to the
Origination of Matter and of Force, but
Equal also to the

Origination of Matter thus constituted, and of
Force thus adjusted ?

5. Evolution : is thus seen to be the measure of

Involution.

"Whatever has been evolved in the Effect

Was previously involved in the Cause.

6. Causa Causarum : What was that ?

In " The First Beginning " ?

II. Life.

**0f the causes which have led to the origina-
tion of living matter, it may be said that we
know absolutely nothing." (Huxley)

But, however inscrutable the mode,

There is no question, nor any room for question
As to the Fact :

** Living matter " was ** once originated."

Life had a Beginning.

Still more inscrutable is the Mystery which

shrouds
The First Emergence of

III. The Self-Conscious Mind.

Mr. J. S. Mill on the Existence of Mind.

Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer, on "States of
Consciousness."

"Consciousness," says Prof. Huxley, is "un-
accountable."

" No one can prove that mind and life are in any
way related to chemistry and mechanics."

Analytical Outline of Contents, xvii

Consciousness and Physics are incommensurable.
•* Thought BEGAN to be." How ?
** Intelligence, self-conscious, emerged ^

Whence ?

CHAPTER IX.

The Three Barriers.

Mr. Darwin on

The adaptation of organs,
The transmutation of animals,
The Origin of Instinct,
The ant, and the honey-bee.
His Theory of Neuters :

Fertile parents transmit,

through fertile progeny,
A tendency to produce sterility,

incapable of further production.
His oversight of

The evidence of Design.
His Remarkable Omissions.
His ingenious substitution of

The "conceivable " for the actual.
His habitual avoidance of

The profounder marvels of Nature, and
Their only true solvent —

The ordination of God.
The Three Barriers of

Comparative Anatomy.
I. The Backbone :

The basis of Strength.
An impassable Barrier
Until it can be shewn

How a butterfly could become a bird,
Or a snail, a serpent,
Or a star-fish acquire the skeleton of
a salmon or a shark.

xviii Analytical Outline of Contents.

II. The Breast :

The type of Tenderness
Until it can be shewn

How an animal that never was
suckled stumbled on the capacity
oigimng what it never got.

III. The Brain :

The measure of Capacity.

The Human Brain is Pleno-cerebral :

All other Brains are Manco-cerebral.

To all Men the pleno-cerebral type is common :

To Man J as such, it is peculiar.

The lowest Human Brain has the latent franchise

Progressive Reason :
All other Brains have the rigid circumscription of

Unprogressive Instinct.
No brute is susceptible of Human Culture ;
No human infant is not so.
Between these two the Difference is Immeasurable.

CHAPTER X.

Atoms.

** The Atoms are the First Beginnings."
What, then, are these Atoms ?

** Ultimate homogeneous units :*'

Lange. Mr. Herbert Spencer.

** One ultimate form of Matter."
Dr. Tyndall's rejection of

Mr. Spencer's dictum.
Heterogeneity of the Atoms.

Chemical Phenomena

Not to be deduced from

Mechanical conditions.
Their grouping : Their varieties :

In shape ; In'lcind.
Their Motions, Forces, Affinities :

Inadequate to the problem proposed.

Analytical Outline of Contents, xix

The "Atoms** are

Not the Beginning.

They have ** all the characteristics of
Manufactured Articles.*'

Sir John Herschel.
" No Theory of Evolution can be formed to account for them."

Professor Maxwell. Professor Pritchard.
Sir William Thomson : —

**The assumption of atoms can explain no pro-
perty of body which has not previously been
attributed to the atoms themselves."

CHAPTER XI.
Apes.

Professor Tyndall*s postulate : —

That human ancestors were not human.
Mr. Darwin's: —

**A series of forms graduating insensibly
From some ape-like creature
To man as he now exists." But
(L ) The series is not a series.

It has no continuity, and no concatenation,
(ii.) It does not "graduate insensibly."

It exhibits "breaks": "wide, sharp, and

defined."
These breaks ** incessantly occur in all parts

of the series."
(iii.) The "ape-like creature" is wholly hypo-
thetical
It is absolutely non-existent.
There is no evidence that it ever was other-
wise.
Professor Huxley's

Cautious and conditional generalizations
Adverse to Mr. Darwin's theory.

XX Analytical Outline of Contents.

Professor HaeckePs

** Rogues in buckram."

Destitute of any single living representative.

Destitute of fossil evidence of their former existence.
The Chordonia

^* Developed themselves" !
The admissions of its advocates, are

Fatal to The Theory.

CHAPTER XII.

Men.

Prof. Huxley's dicta on

** The question of questions for mankind."
Contrast between Men and Apes :

As to cerebral structure.

As to cerebral weight.

As to ** the great gulf in intellectual power

between lowest man and highest ape."

As to **the structural differences

which separate Man from the Gorilla."
No intermediate Link

bridges over the gap between Homo and Troglo-
dytes:'
Paradoxes :

" Qua-qu^-versal propositions."
** The UNMEASURABLE and practically infinite divergence

Of the Human from the Simian Stirps. "

Its ** Primary Cause."
Psychical Distinctions.
Structural Distinctions.
Mr. Darwin's Testimony to

** The great break in the organic chain

Between man and his nearest allies, which

Cannot be bridged over

By any extinct or living species."
Prof. Mivart's Refutation of this theory.

Man, the apes, and the half-apes

Cannot be arranged in a single ascending series.

Analytical Outline of Contents, xxi

The Lines of Affinity existing between different Primates

Construct a network : but not a ladder.
The Survival of the Fittest.

But the fittest (according to the Theory)

Have not survived.

The half-apes are with us to this day :

The half-men are nowhere.
Mr. Wallace^s Demonstration

That the Origin of Man is to be found only in

An Act of Special Creation.
Mr. Mivart's Conclusion :

That Mr. Darwin "has utterly failed

In the only part of his work which
is really important. "

CHAPTER XIII.
Anima Mundl

** A Soul in all things."

The Inorganic World.
. Phenomena of Crystallization.

Prof. Tyndall's Fallacy ;

Pyramid builders : Architect : Controlling Power.
Prof. Tyndall's belief that

** The formation of a plant or an animal

Is a purely mechanical problem."
Prof. Huxley's assertion that

** A mass of living protoplasm

Is simply a molecular machine. "
His resort to "subtle influences,"

i.e,^ to Vital Force.
His assertion that

"A particle of jelly" guides forces.

Refuted by Dr. Beale.
Two Points involved in these assertions : —

I. The introduction of Life ;

II. The manifestations of Mind.

xxii Analytical Outline of Contents.

I. Vital Action : In contrast with physico-chemical action
Is peculiar to living beings.
Haeckel's Testimony : —

"The phenomena which living things pre-
sent have no parallel in the mineral
world."
Du Bois Reymond's : —

**It is futile to attempt by chemistry to
bridge the chasm between the living
and the not-living. "
No machine can grow.
No machine can produce machines like itself.

II. Mind. i. " Horologity" : and the "watch-force " :
A combination of many forces, and
Their adjustment to a particular Purpose.
Its seat is in

The Intelligence which conceived that com-
bination ; and in
The Will which gave it effect.
This evidence of Design is shewn in Universal
Nature.

2. The Shell of the Barnacle.

3. The Electric Ray.

"It is impossible to conceive by what steps
these wondrous organs have been pro-
duced." (Mr. Darwin.)

4. The new-bom Kangaroo.

" Irrefragable evidence of Creative fore-
sight." (Prof. Owen.)

5. The Eye : " With all its inimitable con-

trivances" (Mr. Darwin) (Prof. Pritchard.)
Nature is full of Plan.

Yet she plans not.

Where Science assumes a Use,

Religion affirms an Author.
The Question, For what?
Involves the further question, From whom ?

Analytical Outline of Contents, xxiii

Mr. Ruskin, on The Great First Cause

"Personal" : and "A Supporting Spirit in all

things."
The Formative Cause.
The Living Power.
What is it ? and Whence 1
"There is no answer."
Ascensive Life.
Language : Peculiar to Man :

"Thinker of God's thoughts after Him."
What is the Origin of Mind ?
The genesis of Thought.

"Thaumaturgic." (Carlyle.)
" No mere function of The Brain."
" A World by itself."
Volition. Whence ?

A machine not mechanical.
** An automaton endowed with free will."
Consciousness.

"A rock on which Materialism must inevitably

split." (Tyndall.)
Perfectly " unaccountable." (Huxley.)
" Brain- waves." (Ruskin.)
Sense of Responsibility.

"Duty! . . . WHENCE thy original?
(Kant.)
The Majestic Spectacle of The Universe
Is a spectacle for the eye of Reason.
Natural Agents working for ends which they them'

selves cannot perceive.
But * * Every house is builded by some man " ;

And
"He that built all things, is God."

CHAPTER I.

THE RIGHT OF SEARCH

" He was perfectly satisfied that there was no God at
present, but he believed there would be one by-and-by ;
for as the organization of the universe perfected itself, a
universal mind, he argued, would be the result. This he
called the system of progressive nature." — Southey,

" But what I have to tell you positively is, that . . .
a Spirit does actually exist which teaches the ant her
path, the bird her building, and men, in an instinctive
and marvellous way, whatever lovely arts and noble deeds
are possible to them. Without it you can do no good
thing. To the grief of it you can do many bad ones. In
the possession of it is your peace and your power."—
Ruskin*

CHAPTER I.

THE RIGHT OF SEARCH

"God created man"? No such thing! The
monads developed him. " The heavens declare
the glory of God"? Far from it: "they de-
clare only the glory of the astronomer !" " We
have now no need of the hypothesis of God."

These utterances, and such as these, startling
alike to reverence and to faith, are the merest
common places of modem agnosticism. In-
stead of being, as once they were regarded, the
terminus ad quern, the ultimate goal, to which
unbelief was tending, they have long since been
left behind as a mere terminus d qtWy a tempo-
rary station for a new point of departure. The
scepticism which doubted has given place to the
dogmatism which denies. " Honest doubt '* has
been supplanted by the clamour of a positive
self-assertion. A positivism of which Comte
knew nothing has usurped the authority, while
renouncing the functions, of scientific enquiry.

4 Scientific Sophisms,

In a word, Agnosticism is no more, and Gnosti-
cism reigns in its stead.

Agnosticism made candid confession of its
ignorance. Gnosticism parades its pretensions
to knowledge. The former did not know : the
latter is quite sure. The Divine existence is
now declared to be not only unnecessary ; it is
absolutely unreal. God has no existence, even
hypothetically, except as the creature of the
human imagination. The hand may well trem-
ble that writes it, and the ears may tingle that
hear, yet it; has been both written and said — in
modes that demand more attention than they
have hitherto received — ^There is no God ! ex-
cept such as man has made. "The dim and
shadowy outlines of the superhuman deity fade
slowly away from before us ; and as the mist of
his presence floats aside, we perceive with greater
and greater clearness the shape of a yet grander
and nobler figure — of Him who made all gods
and shall unmake them." ^

Who then is He, this " grander and nobler
figure," this great and only potentate "who
made all gods and shall unmake them".^ this
"human" who dethrones "the superhuman
deity"? It is man himself. "From the dim

1 Professor Clifford : " The Ethics of Religion,'* in The
Fortnightly Review^ vol. xxii. New series, p. 52.

The Right of Search. 5

dawn of history, and from the inmost depth of
every soul, the face of our father Man looks out
upon us with the fire of eternal youth in his
eyes, and says, ' Before Jehovah was, I am !* " ^

And yet, this " Man our father," was once an
Ape: and, before that, "a jelly-bag." That
jelly-bag (which " made all gods and shall un-
make them ") sucking in water and sticking to
a stone, has advanced to its present august
condition by " a principle of development " and
" a process of evolution." It is true indeed
that the principle is one which nobody has ever
proved, and the process is one which nobody
has ever witnessed ; but woe to the unlucky
wight who dares to doubt their validity, or who
fails to recognise in " Mr. Charles Darwin, the
Abraham of scientific men." ^

" Most of you," says Professor Tyndall, " have
been forced to listen to the outcries and de-
nunciations which rang discordant through the
land for some years after the publication of
Mr. Darwin's 'Origin of Species.' Well, the
world — even the clerical word — has for the

1 Professor Clifford : " The Ethics of Religion," in The
Fortnightly Review^ vol. xxii. New series, p. 52. Vide
infrd : Appendix, Note A.

« Prof. Tyndall : " Science and Man," in The Fort-
nightly Review, vol. xxii. New series, p. 615.

6 Scientific Sophisms.

most part settled down in the belief that Mr.
Darwin's book simply reflects the truth of
Nature : that we who are now ' foremost in the
files of time * have come to the front through
almost endless stages of promotion from lower
to higher forms of life." ^

" The most part " : but what of the rest, the
remaining part ? Let it stand in awe. If it
cannot be convinced it can be denounced. And
it IS denounced accordingly. It is more base
and stupid than — "even the clerical world."
He who belongs to it is ipso facto stigmatized
as ignorant and incompetent.^ He is " unstable
and weak," * " a brawler and a clown." *

> Prof. Tyndall : " Science and Man," in The Fort-
nightly Review y vol. xxii. New series, p. 6ii.

^ The great and venerated name of Von Baer is asso-
ciated by Haeckel with the idea of "harmless senile
garrulity." Adolf Bastian is a "Privy Councillor of
Confusion " ; Du Bois-Raymond is a " rhetorical phrase-
spinner,'* if not a Professor of Voluntary Ignorance ;
while Carl Semper is a — a person regardless of truth,
expressed in a brief word not usually heard among
gentlemen. " Haeckel," says Dr. £lam, " has probably
never heard of the insignificant names of Owen, Mivart,
and Agassiz, or they would doubtless have been remem-
bered in the catalogue of wretched smatterers who have
come under his signal disapproval"

» Prof. TyndalPs "Address delivered at Belfast."
Longmans, 1874, p. 63.

* Fortnightly Review ^ vol. xxii. p. 614.

The Right of Search, 7

But "methinks the lady doth protest too
much." Were these denunciations more dis-
passionate they might seem more disinterested.
As it is, they are too strenuous to be forcible ;
too loud to be effective. Nor is this the worst.
They have another fault more fatal still. They
are altogether irrelevant. They do not hit,
they merely miss, the mark. They are beside
the question. For the question is as to the
nature and character of the new doctrine. And
with that question the merits or demerits of
advocates and assailants are not concerned.
" Materialistic Atheism," we are told, " is in the
air.*' So be it : but then this same materialistic
atheism is either true or it is not. If it is not
true, let that be shown, and it will fall without
assailants. If it is true, let that be shown, and
it will then have no need of advocates. No one
thinks it necessary to take the field in defence of
the properties of conic sections ; and the foun-
dations of the venerable pons asinorum remain
unmoved and unimpaired from age to age.
Why then, in propounding that very open
secret, their latest discovery, should the demi-
gods of the scientific Olympus forsake their
philosophic calm for the irritating gusts of
irascible acerbity ?

Tantaene animis ccelestibus irae ?

8 Scientific Sophisms.

They make their boast of truth. They pro-
claim aloud their contempt of consequences.
The boast would have been more becoming if
it had been less exclusive. Those who make
it will have a better claim to be heard when
they have learned, with the modesty of science,
to moderate the pretensions by which they
arrogate to themselves a monopoly of the virtue
which they say is theirs. When they tell us
that "Mr. Charles Darwin, the Abraham of
scientific men," is " a scholar as obedient to the
command of truth as was the patriarch to the
command of God," ^ we are under no necessity,
as we certainly have no inclination, to dispute
the accuracy of the assertion. But when to this
it is added that to reject Mr. Darwin's hypo-
thesis, and those of his coadjutors and com-
mentators, is " to purchase intellectual peace at
the price of intellectual death," ^ we ask for
the evidence in support of this assertion. That
evidence has yet to be produced. Is it pro-
ducible } It is at all events not forthcoming.
Until the truth of these hypotheses has been
established it is not possible, in the name of
truth, to demand our acceptance of them. And
until then, as always, our position in relation to

^ Fortnightly Review^ vol. xxii. p. 615.
' " The Belfast Address,'' ut sup.y p. 63.

The Right of Search. 9

them must be determined, as it is now deter-
mined, by that paramount consideration, our
reverence for truth.

The necessity of meeting this conviction is
not unfelt by those to whom it is opposed ; and
their perception of its force is shown by the
remarkable admission contained in their reply.
It is the ideal Lucretian himself who is the
speaker : —

" It is not to the point to say that the views
of Lucretius and Bruno, of Darwin and Spencer
may be wrong. Here I should agree with you,
deeming it indeed certain that these views will
undergo modification. But the point is, that
whether right or wrong, we ask the freedom to
discuss them."^ "As regards these questions
science claims unrestricted right of search." *

Agreed. We desire nothing better. The
case must be argued before it is decided. And
it may not be prejudged. What is certain is,
"that the views of Lucretius and Bruno, of
Darwin and Spencer may be wrong " : " certain
that these views will undergo modification."
Certain therefore that "the world, — even the
clerical world," — in accepting these wrong views,
" has for the most part " gone wrong too, and,

1 "The Belfast Address," ui sup.^ p. 64.
' Ibid,, p. 63.

lo Scientific Sophisms.

sooner or later, not without harm and loss, will
have to return from the error of its ways.

Meantime, the inquiry to which we are chal-
lenged, though not without complex relations, is
in itself very simple. It is not to be influenced
by opinion. It is not to be biassed by pre-
judice. It is not to be decided by authority.
It is directed to the investigation of facts. It
must be guided, not by great names, but by
great principles. It must be kept distinct from
other, though collateral, inquiries ; and it must
be patiently pursued to no uncertain issue.
This Materialistic Atheism, propounded in the
name of Science : Is it true ? Is it demon-
strable ? Is it Scientific ?

CHAPTER II

EVOLUTION.

" Nature was to this man, what to the Thinker and
Prophet it for ever is, /r^/^rnatural.'* — Carlyle,

" A mighty maze ! but not without a plan." — Pope,

^^ Falstaff, I would your grace would take me with
you." — King Henry /F., Part i, Act ll. Scene iv.

CHAPTER II.

EVOLUTION.

It stumbles at starting. Of Evolution as al-
leged, there are several varieties ; and the theory-
is at fault among them. A choice must be made,
and the choice is not easy. Natural Selection,
if it were not merely the nominal designation
of an unreal entity, might here render important
service; but as it is, is useless. And to spon-
taneous selection the choice is encumbered with
difficulties. Of these difficulties it is not the
least that, by the theory, spontaneous selection
is impossible : spontaneity is non-existent, save
in imagination. Since this little difficulty is
not (by the theory) to be surmounted, it must
be evaded ; and when it has been evaded the
labour of selection begins.

The varieties from which the selection must
be made may be classed in three main divisions ;
or, in other words, notwithstanding the protests
of those Darwinians who deny the existence

14 Scientific Sophisms.

of species, they may all be referred to three
species: the theistic, the atheistic, and the
agnostic.

Evolutionists of the first class admit, while
those of the second deny, the existence of a
Divine Creator. By those of the third class,
that existence, while not by any means admitted,
is yet not explicitly denied. It is simply
ignored. They "have no need of the hypothesis
of God." Foremost among the leaders of this
latter class are Mr. Spencer and Professors
Huxley, Tyndall, and Bain. Less cautious or
more candid are Carl Vogt, Ernst Haeckel, and
Buchner, as representatives of atheistic develop-
ment ; while the theistic, its antithesis, is vindi-
cated by names of no less note than those
of Sir John Herschel, Sir William Thomson,
Professors Owen, Dawson, Gray, Dr. Carpenter,
and, at least in his earlier writings, Mr. Charles
Darwin himself.

The existence of these varieties is a fact at
once significant and instructive. Our present
concern, however, is not with these, except so
far as they serve to illustrate or demonstrate
the nature of the base which they have in
common. That doctrine of Development which
they all affirm : what is it } What are its pre-
tensions.^ Where are its proofs?

Evolution. 1 5

Let " the Abraham of scientific men " speak
first.

" It is interesting," he says,^ " to contemplate
an entangled bank, clothed with many plants
of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes,
with various insects flitting about, and with
worms crawling through the damp earth, and
to reflect that these elaborately-constructed
forms so different from each other, and depen-
dent on each other in so complex a manner,
have all been produced by laws acting around
us." "There is grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers, having been originally
breathed into a few forms or into one."

The grandeur, however, is questionable. It
may be nothing more than a figment of the
imagination, a mere matter of taste, or of
opinion ; but even if it were matter of fact, it is
not a matter with which we have any concern.
Our enquiry as to "this view of life" is not,
Can it be made to look grand } but. Can it be
shown to be true.?

At present, this has not been shown. Even
Mr. Darwin himself does not profess to " know,"
he merely " believes," the truth of the doctrine
he propounds. " I believe," these are his words,

* "Origin of Species.". First Edition (Murray : 1859),
chap. xiv. pp. 489, 490.

t6 Scientific Sophisms.

''that animals have 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 have descended from
some one prototype. But analogy may be a de-
ceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have
much in common, . . . Therefore I should
infer from analogy that probably all the organic
beings which have ever lived on this earth have
descended from some one primordial form into
which life was first breathed."^

But this "belief," which Mr. Darwin thinks
"probable," this "inference" derived from
" analogy," has never been verified. How could
it be verified, when its most ardent apostles
assure us that it may, after all, " be wrong," and
will "certainly" have to "undergo modifica-
tion ? " ^ But even if it had been verified it is
not "materialism," it is not "atheism," it is
not "agnosticism." It is the very reverse of
all these, for it is a manifesto of absolute
" theism."

" In my book on the * Genesis of Species,' "
says Professor St. George Mivart,* "I had in

* " Origin of Species." First Edition, chap. xiv. p. 484.
2 Prof. Tyndall, ut sup., p. 7.

• "Lessons from Nature." Murray, 1876, p. 429.

Evolution. 1 7

view two main objects. My first was to show
that the Darwinian theory is untenable, and that
' Natural Selection ' is not the origin of species.
My second was to demonstrate that nothing
even in Mr. Darwin's theory (as put forth before
the publication of his 'Descent of Man/) and,
d fortiori, nothing in Evolution generally, was
necessarily antagonistic to Christianity."

Reserving for further examination the first
of these propositions, "that the Darwinian
theory is untenable," it may be observed as to
the second, that of the theistic doctrine of
Evolution there are theoretically three main
varieties : (i) That which limits the supernatural
action in the origination of species to the crea-
tion of primordial cells. (2) That which, while
maintaining the intervention of direct or special
creation, regards the origination of species as
being for the most part effected indirectly, i.e.,
through the agency of natural causes. (3) That
which regards God as immanent in natural law,
and recognises in all phenomena the result of
present Divine action.

In his earlier writings, the theism of Mr.
Darwin is most explicit. Thus, for example,
when speaking of certain birds found in Tierra
del Fuego, he says, "when finding, as in this
case, any animal which seems to play so insignifi-

1 8 Scientific Sophisms.

cant a part in the great scheme of nature, one
is apt to wonder why a distinct species should
have been created ; but it should always be
recollected that in some other country perhaps
it is an essential member of society, or at some
former period may have been so." ^ And again :
In his description of the Passage of Cordillera,
he says, " I was very much struck with the
marked difference between the vegetation of
these eastern valleys and that of the opposite
side : yet the climate, as well as the kind of
soil, is nearly identical, and the difference of
longitude very trifling. The same remark holds
good with the quadrupeds, and in a lesser degree
with the birds and insects." "This fact," he
adds, "is in perfect accordance with the geo-
logical history of the Andes ; for these moun-
tains have existed as a great barrier since a
period so remote that whole races of animals
must subsequently have perished from the
face of the earth. Therefore, unless we sup-
pose the same species to have been created
in two different countries, we ought not to
expect any closer similarity between the organic
beings on opposite sides of the Andes, than

* " Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.'s Ships
Adventure and BeagleP London, 1839. Vol. iii.

Evolution. 1 9

on shores separated by a broad strait of the
sea." 1

And to take but one other instance : In con-
cluding his review of the causes of extinction
of certain animals in Patagonia, he says, — " We
see that whole series of animals, which have
been created with peculiar kinds of organi-
zation, are confined to certain areas ; and we can
hardly suppose these structures are only adapta-
tions to peculiarities of climate or country ; for
otherwise, animals belonging to a distinct type,
and introduced by man, would not succeed so
admirably even to the extermination of the
aborigines. On such grounds it does not seem
a necessary conclusion, that the extinction of
species, more than their creation, should exclu-
sively depend on the nature (altered by physical
changes) of their country." ^ In these passages
we have not only the assertion of species as an
established distinction in animal life, we have
also the further assertion that these "distinct
species," " with peculiar kinds of organization,"
are to be attributed to " Creation " as their
cause, and not "to peculiarities of climate or
country."

* " Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M/s Ships
Adventure and Beagled Lon don, 1 839. VoL iii. pp. 399, 400.
' Ibid,^ p. 212.

20 Scientific Sophisms.

But in his later works, the theism thus articu-
lately pronounced is conspicuous chiefly by its
absence. At the same time it is not expressly
excluded. And on this account the agnostic
and atheistic leaders take him roundly to task,
notwithstanding his Abrahamic dignity. Thus,
for instance, Professor Tyndall : —

"Diminishing gradually the number of pro-
genitors, Mr. Darwin comes at length to one
* primordial form ; ' but he does not say, as far
as I remember, how he supposes this form to
have been introduced. He quotes with satis-
faction the words of a celebrated author and
divine, who had ' gradually learnt to see that it
is just as noble a conception of the Deity to
believe He created a few original forms, capable
of self-development into other and needful
forms, as to believe that He required a fresh
act of creation to supply the voids caused by
the action of His laws.* What Mr. Darwin
thinks of this view of the introduction of life
I do not know. But the anthropomorphism,
which it seemed his object to set aside, is as
firmly associated with the creation of a few
forms as with the creation of a multitude.
We need clearness and thoroughness here.
Two courses and two only are possible. Either
let us open our doors freely to the conception

Evolution. 2 1

of creative acts, or, abandoning them, let us
radically change our notions of Matter." ^

Professor Tyndall, as is well known, adopts
the latter of these alternatives, and discerns in
Matter " the promise and potency of all terres-
trial life." ^ To do this, however, is, as he him-
self declares, to "abandon," once for all, *'the
conception of creative acts."

Has Mr. Darwin abandoned that conception }
If he has not, then he lacks "clearness and
thoroughness " — " father of scientific men "
though he be. So, at least, says Professor
Tyndall, and Professor Huxley goes still further.

Mr. Huxley's utterances on this subject pos-
sess a special interest from the eulogy pro-
nounced on him as the accredited " expounder "
of the Darwinian doctrine. Thus, at Belfast,
when introducing his summary of " The Origin
of Species," Professor Tyndall said, —

" The book was by no means an easy one ;
and probably not one in every score of those
who then attacked it had read its pages through,
or were competent to grasp its significance if
they had. I do not say this merely to discredit
them ; for there were in those days some really

* " Address delivered before the British Association at
Belfast" Longmans, 1874, pp. 53, 54.
' Ibid.j p. 55.

22 Scientific Sophisms.

eminent scientific men, entirely raised above
the heat of popular prejudice, willing to accept
any conclusion that science had to offer, pro-
vided it was duly backed by fact and argument,
and who entirely mistook Mr. Darwin's views.
In fact, the work needed an expounder ; and
it found one in Mr. Huxley. I know nothing
more admirable in the way of scientific exposi-
tion than those early articles of his on the origin
of species. He swept the curve of discussion
through the really significant points of the
subject, enriched his exposition with profound
original remarks and reflections, often summing
up in a single pithy sentence an argument
which a less compact mind would have spread
over pages." ^

Now the pithy sentence with which we are
here concerned is this : —

"The improver of natural knowledge abso-
lutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such.
For him, scepticism is the highest of duties,
blind faith the one unpardonable sin. The man
of science has learned to believe in justification,
not by faith, but by verification." ^

And with this Professor Tyndall agrees:
"Without verification a theoretic conception is

* " Address,** ut sup,^ p. 38.

2 " Lay Sermons." Macmillan, 1871, p. 18.

Evolution^ 23

a mere figment of the intellect" TorricelH,
Pascal, and Newton were distinguished by their
" welding of rigid logic to verifying fact" " If
scientific men were not accustomed to demand
verification . . . their science, instead of
being, as it is, a fortress of adamant, would be
a house of clay." " Newton's action in this
matter is the normal action of the scientific
mind." ^ " There is no genius so gifted as not
to need control and verification." »

What then becomes of "the Abraham of
scientific men " } In the " Origin of Species "
Mr. Darwin tells us repeatedly,^ that it would
be " fatal " to his theory if it should be found
that there were characters or structures which
could not be accounted for by *' numerous,
successive, slight modifications " ; and this can-
did admission is supplemented in the " Descent
of Man,"* by another equally candid : —

* "Fragments of Science.'* Longmans, 1871, pp. 59,
62.

^ /<Wai, p. III.

' See especially, (First Edition,) p. 189, where, after
attempting to explain the origfin of the eye, he says, "If
it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would abso-
lutely break down.

* Murray, 1871, vol. ii. p. 387.

24 Scientific Sophisms.

" No doubt man, as well as every other
animal, presents structures which, as far as we
can judge with our little knowledge, are not
now of any service to him, nor have been so
during any former period of his existence,
either in relation to his general condition of
life, or of one sex to the other. Such struc-
tures cannot be accounted for by any form of
selection, or by the inherited effects of the use
and disuse of parts."

Here, then, we have the fullest recognition of
the validity of objections which are absolutely
fatal to his whole doctrine. But with this
recognition, what becomes of "verification ".^

Mr. Darwin's doctrine, however, constitutes a
very small part of that " theoretic conception "
which, under the name of Evolution, is now
declared by Professor Huxley to be no longer
"a matter of speculation and argument," but
on the contrary, has " become a matter of fact
and history." "The history of Evolution," he
adds, " as a matter of fact, is now distinctly
traceable. We know it has happened, and what
remains is the subordinate question of how it
happened." ^

It is to be observed, however, that the " Evo-

* "Address at Buffalo," August 2Sth. Reported in
The Times of Sept. 14, 1876.

Evolution. 2 5

lution " of which Mr. Huxley makes this affirm-
ation, is something very difTerent from the
indefinite nondescript which in popular writings
is often designated by the same term. Not
unfrequently " evolution " means simply pro-
gress or advancement. It is even used when
nothing more than growth is intended. It is
employed as if it were identical with " natural
selection," or "transmutation/' or any other
mode of " development." But with Mr. Huxley,
evolution is something more than the emer-
gence of the chick from the egg, or the oak from
the acorn, or the frog from the tadpole. It is not
a mere increase of bulk, nor is it restricted to
any particular process, nor has it any special
aim. It is a change from simplicity to com-
plexity ; from incoherence and indefiniteness to
their opposites.

Thus, for instance, the nebular hypothesis
supposes the evolution of the planetary bodies
from incoherent atoms, which come not merely
into mutual relation, but which also in that
process become grouped together in such a way
that the nascent mass becomes complex, con-
sists of parts. Again : the homogeneous proto-
plasm in which all organized beings commence,
shows, when under favourable conditions, first
the elements of tissues. These elements are

26 Scientific Sophisms,

afterwards grouped into tissues, and the tissues
are associated into organs. The "indifferent"
matter is differentiated in various degrees, and
the animal and vegetable series show many-
grades of difference.

Thus the Protamceba never reaches to the
formation of tissues; the Hydra has tissues,
but few organs ; and, ascending in the series, the
sharks, complex as is their organization, exhibit
a less thorough differentiation of their hard
parts, which are chiefly cartilaginous, than do
mammals, in which cartilage is subordinate to
bone. But the evolution of the more complex
from the more simple organisms does not neces-
sarily form a linear series ; probably it never
does so. Nor does evolution imply change of
matter as well as of the relations of its parts ;
fresh matter is not essential to it, since the
phenomena which it includes are, as matter of
fact, rearrangements of that which was already
existing.

Such are the principal facts regarding evolu-
tion ; and from these it is evident that the
phenomena themselves are absolutely indepen-
dent of any and of every theory as to their
cause. Thus understood and thus limited,
Evolution, — Le,y the phenomenal sequence, not
the ideal hypothesis — is a law the operation

Evolution. 2 7

of which is traceable throughout every depart-
ment of nature.

Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition of it is
equally clear and concise : '* Evolution is a
change from an indefinite, incoherent homo-
geneity, to a definite, coherent heterogeneity ;
through continuous differentiations and integra-
tions." 1

Its absolute universality of operation he thus
expresses : " Whether it be in the development
of the Earth, in the development of Life upon
its surface, in the development of Society, of
Government, of Manufactures, of Commerce, of
Language, of Literature, Science, Art, this same
advance from the simple to the complex,
through successive differentiations, holds uni-
formly. From the earliest traceable cosmical
changes down to the latest results of civilization,
we shall find that the transformation of the
homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in
which Evolution essentially consists." ^

In this last sentence we have not merely
the " transformation " " in which evolution
essentially consists ; " we have also the assjump-

* " First Principles." Williams & Norgate, 1862, p.
216. A subsequent definition is given below. See
Appendix, Note B.

^ /hW,y pp. 148, 149.

28 Scientific Sophisms.

tion that " the latest results of civilization *'
have been evolved, in the way of necessary and
inevitable consequence, from " the earliest trace-
able cosmical changes." Human life, with all its
inexhaustible possibilities, has been evolved from
life infra-human. The life of the lower animals,
like that of plants, was in the first instance
evolved from non-living matter ; as that matter
itself was evolved from " cosmic vapour."

Professor Tyndall, as we have seen, tells us
that " the world — even the clerical world — has
for the most part settled down in the belief that
Mr. Darwin's book simply reflects the truth of
Nature : that we who are now ' foremost in the
files of time ' have come to the front through
almost endless stages of promotion from lower
to higher forms of life." ^ And again :—

" It is now generally admitted that the man
of to-day is the child and product of incalcu-
lable antecedent time. His physical and intel-
lectual textures have been woven for him during
his passage through phases of history and forms
of existence which lead the mind back to an
abysmal past." ^ " If to any one of us were
given the privilege of looking back through the

* " Science and Man." Fortnightly Review^ vol. xxii.
p. 6ii.
- Ibid,^ p. 594.

Evolution. 29

aeons across which life has crept towards its
present outcome, his vision would ultimately
reach a point when the progenitors of this
assembly could not be called human." ^ " No
one indeed doubts now that all the higher types
of life with which the earth teems have been
developed by the patient process of evolution
from lower organisms, and in logical consis-
tency we are bound to trace back the series
to the simplest forms of protoplasm, which the
microscope reveals to us as living units. But
all this is but the outcome of life from life, and
leaves us without an approach to a solution of
the mighty question of the origin of life. There
was a time when the earth was a red-hot melted
globe, on which no life could exist. In course
of ages its surface cooled ; but, to quote the
words of one of our greatest savans, 'when it
first became fit for life there was no living thing
upon it' How then are we to conceive the
origination of organized creatures } " ^

Professor Huxley, propounding to the British
Association^ the tenets of what he called his

* " Science and Man.'* Fortnightly Review^ voL xxii.
p. 611.

2 "The Germ Theory and Spontaneous Generation."
Contemporary Review^ vol. xxix. pp. 901, 902.

' In the Presidential Address for 1870.

30 Scientific Sophisms.

"philosophic faith" on this subject, has
answered this question with his characteristic
clearness of enunciation : —

"If it were given me to look beyond the
abyss of geologically recorded time to the still
more remote period when the earth was passing
through physical and chemical conditions, which
it can no more see again than a man can recall
his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of
the evolution of living protoplasm from not
living matter." ^

To the same effect, and not less articulately,
Professor Tyndall : —

"The problem before us is, at all events,
capable of definite statement. We have on the
one hand strong grounds for concluding that
the earth was once a molten mass. We now
find it not only swathed by an atmosphere and
covered by a sea, but also crowded with living
things. The question is, how were they intro-
duced ? . . . The conclusion of science,
which recognises unbroken causal connection
between the past and the present, would un-
doubtedly be that the molten earth contained
within it the elements of life, which grouped
themselves into their present forms as the planet
cooled. The difficulty and reluctance encoun-

* " Critiques and Addresses.** Macmillan, 1 873, p. 239.

Evolution. 3 1

tered by this conception, arise solely from the
fact that the theologic conception obtained a
prior footing in the human mind. Did the
latter depend upon reasoning alone, it could
not hold its ground for an hour against its
rival. . . . Were not man's origin im-
plicated, we should accept without a murmur
the derivation of animal and vegetable life from
what we call inorganic nature. The conclusion
of pure intellect points this way and no
other." 1

In other words — and to sum up all that has
been said in one short but authoritative sen-
tence — " The doctrine of Evolution derives man
in his totality from the interaction of organism
and environment through countless ages
past" 2

And this it does, whatever may become of
Darwinism. On this head, as well as on the
illimitable sphere of its operation, we have the
final conclusion of Professor Huxley : —

" But even leaving Mr. Darwin's views aside,
the whole analogy of natural operations furnishes
so complete and crushing an argument against
the intervention of any but what are termed

^ " Materialism and its Opponents." Fortnightly Re-
view^ vol. xviii. pp. 596, 597.
' Prof. Tyndall's " Belfast Address," p. 59.

.*-■*'

3 2 Scientific Sophisms.

secondary causes in the production of all the
phenomena of the universe ; that in view of the
intimate relations between Man and the rest of
the living world ; and between the forces exerted
by the latter and all other forces, I can see no
excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated
terms of Nature's great progression, from the
formless to the formed, — from the inorganic to
the organic, — from blind force to conscious in-
tellect and will." *

^ " Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature.'' Williams
and Norgate, 1863, p. 108.

CHAPTER III.

''A PUERILE HYPOTHESISr

" O vitae philosophia dux ! O virtutis indagatrix, ex-
pultrixque vitiorum ! . . . ad te confugimus : a te
opem petimus "— C/V., Tusc, Q^cest^ v. 2.

*' Philosophy, that leaned on Heaven before,
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more."

— The Dunciady Book iv. 643-644.

" God, in the nature of each being, founds
Its proper bliss, and sets its proper bounds."

— Essay on Man, Ep. iii. 109-1 10,

" Ah ! it is a sad and terrible thing to see nigh a whole
generation of men and women professing to be cultivated,
looking around in a purblind fashion, and finding no God
in this universe !" — Carlyle,

CHAPTER III.

''A PUERILE HYPOTHESIS."*

This, then, is Evolution: "baldest of all the
philosophies which have sprung up in our
world." The evolution which solves the pro-
blem of human origin by the assumption that
human nature exists potentially in mere inor-
ganic matter ; and the assertion that man, with
all his powers, and all their products, is the
necessary result, by spontaneous derivation, of
the interaction of incandescent molecules.

But is this evolution scientific ? Is it demon-
strable } Is it true } Before this question its
assumptions cannot save it, however large ; its
assertions cannot prove it, however loud. The
question lies deeper. Has it received the neces-
sary "verification ?" The "verification" without
which, however ingenious as a theoretic con-
ception, it must ever remain " a mere figment of
the intellect ?"i

' Prof. Tyndall's " Fragments of Science,** p. 469.

36 Scientific Sophisms.

To this question the answer is both unambi-
guous and conclusive. To present it the more
clearly, let us take separately the two points
involved. First, what is the evidence for the
succession of life from lower to higher forms }
And second, what is the evidence as to the
existence of any instance of the conversion or
transmutation of one species into another }

Let Professor Huxley answer. For we shall
find no witness more competent than he ; none
whose authority in all matters of natural history
and palaeontology is more indisputable ; none
more illustrious in his championship of Evolu-
tion in general, or of Mr. Darwin's views in par-
ticular. " There is but one hypothesis," he tells
us, "as to the origin of species of animals in
general which has any scientific existence — that
propounded by Mr. Darwin." ^ Testimony from
that quarter, therefore, cannot fail to have a
special force. And on the first part of the
question Professor Huxley writes thus : —

" What, then, does an impartial survey of the positively
ascertained truths of palaeontology testify in relation to
the common doctrines of progressive modification, which
suppose that modification to have taken place by a neces-
sary progress from more to less embryonic forms, or from

* " Man*s Place in Nature," p. 106.

''A Pmrile Hypothesis^ 37

more to less generalized types, within the limits of the
period represented by the fossiliferous rocks ?

" It negatives those doctrines, for it either shows us no
evidence of such modification, or demonstrates such mo-
dification as has occurred to have been very slight ; and
as to the nature of that modification, it yields no evidence
whatsoever that the earlier members of any long-continued
group were more generalized in structure than the later
ones.

" Contrariwise, any admissible hypothesis of progres-
_-/e modification must be compatible with persistence
without progression through indefinite periods." *

In other words, th^ "hypothesis" requires
some proof of " progressive modification," but it
receives none. What it does receive is disproof
only. To its demand for "progression," "the
fossiliferous rocks " reply by exhibiting only
"persistence without progression;" and that,
"through indefinite periods." To its assump-
tion of "almost endless stages of promotion
from lower to higher forms of life," « Palaeon-
tology responds by demonstrating that of these
"stages" there is "no evidence," and of this
"promotion " there is " no evidence whatsoever."

Nor does Professor Huxley stop here. Deal-
ing with the supposition that such a hypothesis
as that of progressive modification should "even-

^ " On Persistent Types of Life : " in " Lay Sermons,"
p. 225.
« Prof. Tyndall's " Science and Man."

38 Scientific Sophisms.

tually be proved to be true," he makes the im-
portant statement that the only way in which it
can be demonstrated will be "by observation
and experiment upon the existing forms of life."^
But demonstration of this kind is non-existent.
Abundantly and incessantly as it has been at-
tempted, it has never yet been achieved. Tried
by this test of "observation and experiment
upon the existing forms of life," neither Organic
Evolution in general nor Mr. Darwin's " Origin
of Species " in particular, has any actual place
in rerum naturd.

On the second part of the question — that
of the transmutation of species — Mr. Huxley
writes :—

" After much consideration, and with assuredly
no bias against Mn Darwin's views, it is our
clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it
is not absolutely proven that a group of animals,
having all the characters exhibited by species
in nature, has ever been originated by selection,
whether artificial or natural." ^ And again : —

" Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis
must be provisional so long as one link in the
chain of evidence is wanting ; and so long as all
the animals and plants certainly produced by

^ " Lay Sermons," p. 226.
' Ibid,<i p. 295.

''A Ptierile Hypothesis'' 39

selective breeding from a common stock are
fertile with one another, that link will be
wanting." ^

"On a general survey of the theory," says
Dr. Elam,^ "nothing strikes us more forcibly
than the total absence of direct evidence of any
one of the steps. No one professes to have ever
seen a variety (producing fertile offspring with
other varieties) become a species (producing no
offspring, or no fertile offspring, with the origi-
nal stock). No one knows of any living or any
extinct species having given origin to any other,
at once or gradually. Not one instance is ad-
duced of any variety having ever arisen which
did actually give its possessor, individually, any
advantage in the struggle for life. Not one in-
stance is recorded of any given variety having
been actually selected for preservation, whilst its
allies became extinct. There is an abundance

* "Man's Place in Nature," p. 107.

^ " Automatism and Evolution." Contemporary Review^
vol. xxix. p. 131. [In gratefully acknowledging my in-
debtedness to the series of papers of which this is the
third (for the first and second, see Contemporary Review^
voL xxviii. pp. 537 and 725), perhaps I may be per-
mitted to say that, by their fairness and forcefulness,
their clearness and conclusiveness, their breadth of range
and their minuteness of detail. Dr. £lam has laid a large
circle of readers under lasting obligations.]

40 Scientific Sophisms.

of semi-acute reasoning upon what might pos-
sibly have occurred, under conditions which
seem never to have been fulfilled ; " but of direct
and positive testimony, whether derived from
the experience of mankind or from trie geolo-
gical record, there is no fragment whaiev^.

Mr. Darwin himself, as showir-'febove,^ is so
far from pretending that his theory has re-
ceived any "verification," as to acknowledge,
with characteristic candour, that in the existence
of structures which "cannot be accounted for
by any form of selection,"^ we have an objection
which is "fatal" to that theory. And even in
the case of other objections not thus pronounced
absolutely "fatal" in form, his admissions are
such as to show that they are fatal in fact.
Thus, for instance, the absence of transitional
forms between different species has abvays been
recognised as a serious difficulty ; and Mr. Dar-
win, in the attempt to obviate it, succeeds only
in showing how very serious it is. These are his
words : —

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain ; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against

* Ante^ p. 23.

2 " Descent of Man," vol, ii. p. 387^

f ''A Puerile Hypothesis^ 41

my tleory. . The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
extreme imperfection of the geological record." *

But *' the extreme imperfection of the geo-
logical r#cord" here hypothecated by way of
" explinatipn," is so far from being a scientific
fact, t\at it ||^s never imagined even by Mr.
Darwin himself until he perceived that unless it
were a$umed, " the testimony of the rocks," —
not lesaithan that of the " structures " presented
by " maL as well as every other animal," — would
be " fata " to his theory.

" I do nt pretend that I should ever have suspected
how poor i record of the mutations of life the best pre-
served geo^gical section presented, had not the difficulty
of our noti discovering innumerable transitional links
between thi species which appeared at the commence-
ment and flke of each formation, pressed so hardly on my
theory." ^ Ad again : — " He who rejects these views on
the nature' a the geological record, will rightly reject my
whole theory^ *

On Mr. ikrwin's own showing therefore, cadit
qucestio, '^jjiese views" of his are to be re-
jected as uncientific, because they are unveri-

* " Origiiof Species." Murray, 1859, p. 280.
2 Ibid,^ pio2.

' />., the |leged " extreme imperfection."
^ " Originbf Species," p. 342.

42 Scientific Sophisms.

fied. They are at best " a mere figment of the
intellect." And their rejection involves ihe re-
jection of his "whole theory." . '

It is therefore no matter for surprise that a
competent authority like Mr. St. George Mivart
should conclude his exhaustive exanination
with these weighty words : —

" With regard to the conception as now put
forward by Mr. Darwin, I cannot trulj* charac-
terize it but by an epithet which I employ only
with much reluctance. I weigh my MOrds, and
have present to my mind the maiy distin-
guished naturalists who have accepted the
notion, and yet I cannot hesitate tc call it a
^puerile hypothesis^ " ^ *

Mr. Mivart's judgments need no endorsement
here ; but those who are most con^rsant with
the highly cultivated critical faculVi the pro-
found knowledge of natural hist)ry and of
biological science which in his * Genesis of
Species," and afterwards, in his " lessons from
Nature," he has brought to the refutation of
Mr. Darwin's doctrine of Natual Selection,
will be the first to adopt and to reiterate this,

1 " Lessons from Nature, as manifesed in Mind and
Matter." By St. George Mivart, jp.D., F.R.S., etc.
London : Murray, 1876. Chap, ix. p. 00, (* This em-
phasis of italics is Mr. Mivart's.)

• >

''A Puerile Hypothesis^

his latest verdict. That doctrine lacks even the
ordinary respectability of "a mere figment of
the iitellect." It is not merely fictitious, it is
discreditable : — a ^^ puerile hypothesis^

;

(

CHAPTER IV.

''SCIENTIFIC LEVITY!*

** He had been eight years upon a project for extracting
sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put into
vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in
raw inclement summers. He told me he did not doubt
in eight years more that he should be able to supply the
governor's gardens with sunshine at a reasonable rate.** —
Gulliver's Travels.

" Mgn somnia vana." — Hcr,^ Ars. Poet, 7.

" We nobly take the high priori road,
And reason downward, till we doubt of God."

— Dunciad^ Book iv. 471-472.

" Ask of the Leam'd the way ? The Learned are Wind ! "

— Essay on Man^ Ep. iv. 19.

CHAPTER IV.

''SCIENTIFIC LEVITY r

Agnostic Evolution, then, is merely an unveri-
fied hypothesis. And it is basefi on two sub-
ordinate hypotheses, equally unverified. And
in relation to it, these last are so essentially
necessary, so absolutely fundamental, that if
either of them be invalidated the entire super-
structure falls to the ground. The Evolution
here controverted, has no existence whatever,
has even no theoretical existence, apart from
these two postulates: (i) "Spontaneous Gene-
ration " ; and (2) " Trans;nutation of Species."
Without the first, it would be destitute of its
starting-point, the " primordial form." Without
the second, it would still be destitute, on agnos-
tic principles, of all other forms than one.

" Transmutation of Species," however, though
reserved for further examination below, may for
the present be dismissed, on the high authority
of Professor Mivart, as a " puerile hypothesis."

But when, on scientific grounds, we proceed to

48 Scientific Sophisms.

enquire as to the amount and character of
evidence produced or producible, in favour of
" Spontaneous Generation," we are compelled
to regard it as a hypothesis still more puerile.

Speaking of evolution at large, and in com-
prehensive terms, Professor Whewell justly ,
says, — " The system ought to be described as a
System of Order in which life grows out of dead
matter^ the higher out of the lower animals^ and .
man out of brutes^ *

To begin then at the beginning. Is "The
System," in its first postulate, true or false ? Is
it matter of fact, or merely matter of fiction ?
Does "life grow out of dead matter.?"

Let us give the place of honour to "the
Abraham of scientific men." Mr. Darwin, writ-
ing to the Athenceunty says — " I hope you will
permit me to add a few remarks on Heterogeny,
as the old doctrine of spontaneous generation
is now called, to those given by Dr. Carpenter,
who, however, is probably better fitted to dis-
cuss the question than any other man in Eng-
land. Your reviewer believes that certain lowly
organized animals have been generated spon-
taneously — that is, without pre-existing parents
— during each geological period in slimy ooze.
A mass of mud with matter decaying and under-

* Whewell's "Indications." Second Edition, p. 12.

^^ Scientific Levity!' 49

going complex chemical changes is a fine
Jiiding-place for obscurity of ideas. But let us
face the problem boldly. He who believes that
organic beings have been produced during each
geological period from dead matter, must believe
that the first being thus arose. There must
have been a time when inorganic elements alone
existed in our planet : let any assumptions be
made, such as that the reeking atmosphere was
charged with carbonic acid, nitrogenized com-
pounds, phosphorus, etc. Now is there a fact,
or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief
that these elements, without the presence of any
organic compounds, and acted on only by known
forces, could produce a living creature? At
present, it is to us a result absolutely incon-
ceivable." ^

Dr. Carpenter had previously written thus : —
" If your reviewer prefers to suppose that new
types of Foraminifera originate from time to
time out of the * ooze,* under the influence of

* polar forces,' he has, of course, a right to his
opinion ; though by most naturalists such

* spontaneous generation * of rotalines and num-
mulites will be regarded as a far more ' astound-
ing hypothesis' than the one for which it is
offered as a substitute. But I hold that mine

^ The Athenaum for 1863, p. 554.^

50 Scientific Sophisms.

IS the more scientific, as being conformable to
the fact . . . ; whilst his is not supported
by any evidence that rotalines or nummulites
ever originate spontaneously, either in * ooze * or
anywhere else." ^

" Spontaneous generation " therefore, so far
from being a scientific verity, is pronounced
by the highest authority in England to be an
"astounding hypothesis," " not supported by
any evidence " ; while the scientific Abraham
declares it to be "absolutely inconceivable."

" What displeases me in Strauss," says Hum-
boldt, " is the scientific levity which leads him
to see no difficulty in the organic springing from
the inorganic, nay, man himself from Chaldean
mud." ^

But how ? The modus operandi : what was
that ? For answer we must turn first of all to a
work which has at least the distinction of having
obtained honourable mention by Prof. Tyndall.
In the Belfast Address ^ we read of " the cele-
brated Lamarck, who produced so profound an
impression on the public mind through the
vigorous exposition of his views by the author
of the * Vestiges of Creation/ " Turning then

* The AthencBum for 1863, p. 461.

• " Letters to Varnhagen." First Edition, p. 117.
» P. 37.

^^ Scientific Levity!^ 51

to this " vigorous exposition " we find that the
transition was effected by means of a " nucleated
vesicle." This "nucleated vesicle," the funda-
mental form of all organisation, we must regard
as "the meeting-point between the inorganic
and the organic — the end of the mineral and
the beginning of the vegetable and animal king-
doms, which thence start in different directions,
but in a general parallelism and analogy."

Nor is this all. For " this nucleated vesicle is
itself a type of mature and independent being
in the infusory animalcules, as well as the start-
ing-point in the foetal progress of every higher
individual in creation, both animal and veget-
able."

What then? Granting all that is here as-
sumed, we are as far as ever from a solution of
the problem proposed. That problem is, to
show the course of " Nature^s great progression,"
as asserted, " from the formless to the formed,
from the inorganic to the organic." But to be-
gin with the nucleated vesicle as "the funda-
mental form of all organisation," is to begin,
not at the beginning, but at the end. "The
starting-point" here alleged, is on the wrong
side the gulf We want to know how it was
reached. We want to see, not the first thing
" formed," but the bridge that spans the chasm

52 Scientific Sophisms.

for the " great progression " from the formless ;
not the first thing that lived, but the ** evolu-
tion " of " life " from " not living matter."

But to satisfy this demand is, as we have seen,
impossible, since the " evolution " required is
not only non-existent, but is pronounced by Mr.
Darwin himself to be " absolutely inconceivable."
What then is to be done? Nothing is more
simple. The demand that cannot be met must
be evaded ; and we are accordingly asked to
believe that the nucleated vesicle " is a form of
being which there is some reason to believe
electric agency will produce — though not per-
haps usher into full life — in albumen, one of
those component materials of animal bodies,
in whose combination it is believed there is no
chemical peculiarity forbidding their being any
day realized in the laboratory. Remembering
these things," proceeds the writer, " we are drawn
on to the supposition that the first step in the
creation of life upon this planet was a chemico-
electric operation, by- which simple germinal
vesicles were produced."

Observe here, not the reasoning, but the un-
reason. The premiss, ''There is some reason
to believe." The conclusion, z^ "supposition."
There is some reason to believe that " electric
agency will produce" something not alive.

''Scientific Levity''' 53

Ergo, " a chemico-electric operation " was " the
first step in the creation of life ! "

But had not Prevost and Dumas previously
announced that " globules could be produced in
albumen by electricity " ? Quite true : but the
support which the author's " supposition " was
supposed to receive from that announcement
fails at once before the remark that, " if his theory
had been that the first step in the process of
creation was the formation of vesicles by the
wind passing over the ocean, then the fact of
boys blowing bubbles in soap and water with a
tobacco pipe, and the fable of Venus being
born of the froth of the sea would have been aa
much to his purpose."

From the author of the " Vestiges " we turn
to his eulogist. Professor Tyndall : —

" If you ask me whether there exists the least evidence
to prove that any form of life can be developed out of
matter, without demonstrable antecedent life, my reply is
that evidence considered perfectly conclusive by many
has been adduced ; and that were some of us who have
pondered this question to follow a very common example,
and accept testimony because it falls in with our belief,
we also should eagerly close with the evidence referred
to. But there is in the true man of science a wish
stronger than the wish to have his beliefs upheld ;
namely, the wish to have them true. And this stronger
wish causes him to reject the most plausible support if he
has reason to suspect that it is vitiated by ^error. Those

54 Scientific Sophisms.

to whom I refer as having studied this question, believing
the evidence offered in favour of * spontaneous genera-
tion ' to be thus vitiated cannot accept it They know
full well that the chemist now prepares from inorganic
matter a vast array of substances which were some time
ago regarded as the sole products of vitality. They are in-
timately acquainted with the structural power of matter as
evidenced in the phenomena of crystallization. They can
justify scientifically their belief in its potency, under the
proper conditions, to produce organisms. But in reply
to your question they would frankly admit their inability
to point to any satisfactory experimental proof that life
can be developed save from demonstrable antecedent
life. As already indicated, they draw the line from the
highest organisms through lower ones down to the lowest,
and it is the prolongation of this line by the intellect
beyond the range of the senses that leads them to the
conclusion which Bruno so boldly enunciated." ^

Reserving, for the present, all consideration of
the other important admissions in this remark-
able paragraph, it is sufiScient to note here the
distinctly decisive answer which it furnishes to
the question before us. " The evidence offered
in favour of * spontaneous generation*" is "viti-
ated by error." There is no "satisfactory ex-
perimental proof," nor even does there exist
" the least evidence to prove that any form of
life can be developed out of matter, without
demonstrable antecedent life."

With this avowal of Professor Tyndall as

^ " Belfast Address," pp. 55, 56.

^^ Scientific Levity T 55

well as with the preceding passage from the
"Vestiges," it is instructive to compare the
carefully constructed sentences — so reticent, so
politic — of Mr. Herbert Spencer : —

" The chasm," he tells us, " between the in-
organic and the organic is being filled up. On
the one hand, some four or five thousand com-
pounds, once regarded as exclusively organic,
have now been produced artificially from inor-
ganic matter ; and chemists do not doubt their
ability so to produce the highest forms of
organic matter. On the other hand, the micro-
scope has traced down organisms to simpler
and simpler forms, until in the Protogenes of
Professor Haeckel, there has been reached *a
type distinguishable from a fragment of albu-
men only by its finely granular character." ^

On which Dr. Elam pertinently asks, " Does
not every candid observer know that this said
' chasm * is not in any way * being filled up ; '
and that the chemist could quite as easily con-
struct a full-grown ostrich, as this despised bit
of finely granulated albumen } " As for the
"four or five thousand compounds," as well
might the goldsmith say that he did not
"doubt his ability" to make gold out of a

* " Principles of Psychology " (Stereot3rped Edition),
voL i. p. 137.

56 Scientific Sophisms.

baser metal, because he had already moulded
it and coloured it in four or five thousand differ-
ent fashions. It is not in any sense true that
any substance even distantly resembling or-
ganizable matter has been formed. The line
of demarcation between the organic and the
inorganic is as wide as ever. For what are
these "organic" matters said to have been
formed from their elements t They are chiefly
binary and ternary compounds ; certain acids
of the compound radical class, some alcohols,
ethers, and the like. Not one of them bears
the most remote resemblance to anything that
can live. Few of them contain nitrogen, and
these few, chiefly amides^ are only combinations
of ammonia or ammonium with other binary
or ternary C9mpounds, and can only by courtesy
or convention be allowed to be of " organic "
nature. Neither chemically nor physically are
they in any way allied to matter possessing the
capacity of life. " One least particle of albu-
men, granulated or not granulated, would be
an answer a thousandfold more crushing to the
opponents of Evolution than myriads of such
compounds."

It is now thirty-five years since the author of
the "Vestiges," in his "vigorous exposition,"
enunciated the "belief" that "albumen"

'^ Scientific Levity'^ 57

might be " any day realized in the laboratory ; "
and that there was "no chemical peculiarity for-
bidding" that realization. In those thirty-five
years scientific chemistry has advanced, with
colossal strides, at a rate of progress previously
unknown and unimagined. Its triumphs are
attested by the number and character of its
investigations, its improved methods, its en-
larged nomenclature, its ever-increasing wealth
of results. Its history during the present cen-
tury presents a continuous series of remarkable
discoveries : the number of non-metallic ele-
ments has been increased by the addition of
iodine, bromine, and selenium ; that of the
metals has been nearly doubled ; the carefully
examined compounds have increased a hundred-
fold ; "a vast array of substances" has been
compounded or decompounded ; but, towards
that border-land which separates the organic
from the inorganic — if such a border-land there
be — this triumphant chemistry has not advanced
one single step. " Chemists,^' we are told, " do
not doubt their ability " to do that which has
hitherto mocked all their efforts. Thirty-five
years ago they were equally untroubled by
doubt, and equally destitute of achievement.
They then believed the great desideratum
might be " any day realized in the laboratory."

58 Scientific Sophisms.

And they "do not doubt" it now. But still
they do not " realize " it. They have not " the
least evidence " in support of their belief : they
have still less of "satisfactory experimental
proof."

But who is this "they"? It is not the
chemist : it is the " philosopher." The chemist
knows better. He knows that notwithstanding
an altered classification of " organic " and " in-
organic," yet between his compounds on the
one hand, and the construction of organizable
matter on the other, there still stands the
impassable barrier which demonstrates that
the affinities of life and living matter belong
to a chemistry of which we know nothing, and
which, to strive to imitate is but to strive in
vain.

The name of Dr. Rudolf Virchow has been
familiar to scientific Europe for nearly forty
years, as one honoured amongst the most
honourable. It was he who, at the Conference
of the Association of German Naturalists and
Physicians at Munich, in the autumn of 1877,
led the reaction in the high places of learning
against the dogmatism of science. And this
is what he says on the "scientific levity" of
" spontaneous generation " : —

"I gfrant that if any one is determined

((

Scientific Levity ^ 59

to form for himself an idea of how the first
organic being could have come into exis-
tence, of itself nothing further is left than to
go back to spontaneous generation. . . .
But of this we do not possess any actual
proof. No one has ever seen a generatio
cequivoca really effected ; and whoever supposes
that it has occurred is contradicted by the
naturalist, and not merely by the theologian.
. . . If it were capable of proof, it would
indeed be beautiful ! . . . But whoever
recalls to mind the lamentable failure of all
the attempts made very recently to discover
a decided support for the geiteratio cequivoca in
the lower forms of transition from the inor-
ganic to the organic world, will feel it doubly
serious to demand that this theory, so utterly
discredited, should be in any way accepted as
the basis of all our views of life." ^

An " astounding hypothesis," " not supported
by any evidence," ^ " absolutely inconceivable," *
and " utterly discredited. " * Such is the
" scientific levity " of Spontaneous Generation.

^ "The Freedom of Science in the Modern State,"

p. 39.

^ Dr. Carpenter, ut sup,

'Mr. Darwin.

* Dr. Virchow.

CHAPTER V.

A HOUSE OF CARDS.

" I have found to my cost, a constant tendency to fill
up the gaps of knowledge by inaccurate and superficial
hypotheses^ — Mr, Darwin,

" The simplicity and completeness of the evolutionist
theory entirely disappear when we consider the unproved
assumptions on which it is based, and its failure to con-
nect with each other some of the most important facts in
nature : in short, it is not in any true sense a philosophy,
but merely an arbitrary arrangement of facts in accor-
dance with a number of unproved hypotheses." — Principal
Dawson,

" Trained in a less severe school than that of geometry
and physics, his reasonings are almost always loose and
inconclusive." — Sir David Brewster,

)

CHAPTER V.

A HOUSE OF CARDS.

" Spontaneous Generation " therefore, not
less than " Transmutation of Species," is merely
" a puerile hypothesis." But on these two
dogmas the theory of agnostic Evolution is
absolutely dependent By means of the sup-
port derived from them — if only they them-
selves could have been made to stand — it might
have stood ; but with their fall, it also comes
to the ground. Its relation to them renders its
fate inevitable. The instability of the super-
structure -is inseparably concomitant with the
insecurity of the foundation.

Nor is this all. Fate is involved in charac-
ter: and when we proceed to examine the
character of this theory, we are at no loss to
discover the cause of its fate.

If the doctrine of agnostic Evolution were

scientifically true, it could not fail to command

the universal assent of scientific men ; whereas

now, on the contrary, it is notorious that

64 Scientific Sophisms.

among the ranks of those most eminent for
scientific attainment there are not wanting ear-
nest and enlightened seekers after truth, who
have not only refused to accept this new doc-
trine with its " logical consequences," but who
have based their refusal on this explicit ground,
that agnostic Evolution is " nothing more than
a flimsy framework of hypothesis constructed
upon imaginary or irrelevant facts, with a com-
plete departure from every established canon of
scientific investigation."

In his Review of Professor Haeckel's
** Natural History of Creation," or, as he would
prefer to call it, " The History of the Develop-
ment or Evolution of Nature," Professor Hux-
ley has expressly formulated **the fundamen-
tal proposition of Evolution." '* That proposi-
tion is," he tells us, "that the whole world,
living and not living, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws,
of the forces possessed by the molecules of
which the primitive nebulosity of the universe
was composed." ^ And he adds, " If this be
true, it IS no less certain that the existing
world lay potentially in the cosmic vapour."

In this, of course, he agrees with Haeckel, by

^"Critiques and Addresses," Macmillan, 1873 (xii.
" The Genealogy of Animals "), p. 305.

A House of Cards. 65

whom "full justice is done to Kant, as the
originator of that 'cosmic gas theory/ as the
Germans somewhat quaintly call it, which is
commonly ascribed to Laplace." ^

Professor Tyndall agrees with both. Having
discerned in " Matter " *' the promise and potency
of all terrestial life,"* he lays it down as funda-
mental that " the doctrine of evolution derives
man in his totality from the interaction of organ-
ism and environment through countless ages
past" ' By that " vision of the mind," which,
as he tells us, " authoritatively supplements
the vision of the eye," * he sees " the cosmic
vapour" as a primitive "nebular haze" (the
" universal fire-mist " of the " Vestiges "), gradu-
ally cooling, and contracting as it cooled, into a
" molten mass," in which " latent and potential "
were not only " life " before it was alive, and
" form " before it was formed, " not alone the
exquisite and wonderful mechanism of the
human body, but the human mind itself;
emotion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena
. . , all our philosophy, all our poetry, all

* "Critiques and Addresses," Macmillan, 1873 (xii.
** The Genealogy of Animals "), p. 304.

^ " Belfast Address," p. 55.
' Ibid.^ p. 59.

* Ibid,^ p. 55.

66 Scientific Sophisms.

our science, and all our art — Plato, Shakespeare,
Newton, Raphael " All that has been ; all that
is ; nay, even all that is imagined only ; was
once, — to the scientific eye, "in a fine frenzy
rolling," — "potential in the fires of the sun ;" ^
just as those fires themselves had no existence
(other than '* latent and potential ") until they
were kindled by the condensation of "the
cosmic vapour."

These quotations, and such as these — for they
might be indefinitely extended — enable us to
sum up the doctrine of Agnostic Evolution in
two short propositions : —

First, " That the earliest organisms were the
natural product of the interaction of ordinary
inorganic matter and force."

Second, " That all the forms of animal and
vegetable life, including man himself, with all
his special and distinctive faculties, have been
slowly, but successively and gradually developed
from the earliest and simplest organisms."

But when we proceed to examine the
scientific pretensions of the theory thus suc-
cinctly stated, we find, on Professor Tyndall's
own showing, that they are worthless. Worth-
less, because unverified, and incapable of veri-
fication. "The strength of the doctrine of
* " Scientific Use of the Imagination,'' p. 453. •

A House of Cards. 67

evolution consists," he tells us, "not in an
experimental demonstration (for the subject is
hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in
its general harmony with scientific thought"^
"Scientific thought," however, can only mean
" the aggregate thoughts of scientific men ; "
and with these thoughts it is most certain that
this doctrine of Evolution is not in harmony.
Mr. Darwin, with his usual candour, writes as
recently as 1871, "Of the older and honoured
chiefs in natural science, many unfortunately
are still opposed to Evolution in every form." *
Since that date it is certain that, on the con-
tinent at least, the doctrine has been met by
many distinguished botanists and zoologists with
growing disfavour. To the same purpose is
the still more recent admission of Professor
Tyndall : " Our foes are to some extent they
of our own household, including not only the
ignorant and the passions^te, but a minority
of minds of high calibre and culture, lovers of
freedom, moreover, who, though its objective
hull be riddled by logic, still find the ethic life
of their religion unimpaired." ^

But even if this were not the case, it would

1 " Belfast Address," p. 58.

' " Descent of Man," p. 2.

' " Materialism and its Opponents," ut sup,^ p. 597.

68 Scientific Sophisms.

still be true, on Professor TyndalFs showing,
that Evolution as above defined has not been
" verified " " by observation and experiment ; "
and that " without verification a theoretic con-
ception is a mere figment of the intellect." *
"Those who hold the doctrine of evolution,"
he tells us, " are by no means ignorant of the
uncertainty of their data, and they only yield
to it a provisional assent. They regard the ne-
bular hypothesis as probable, . . . and accept
as probable the unbroken sequence of develop-
ment from the nebula to the present time." ^

" Probable," " provisional," " uncertain," and
therefore " unscientific ; " this, on the highest
authority, is thus admitted to be the actual
character of " the doctrine of Evolution." But
of what kind is this probability ? When ex-
amined, it appears that even the alleged prob-
ability itself is at best a mere ** supposition," " a
theoretic conception," a probability hypothet-
ical only, nothing more.

For example : Mr. Herbert Spencer tells us
that "there is reason to suspect that there is
but one ultimate form of Matter, out of which
the successively more complex forms of Matter

1 " Fragments of Science," p. 469.

* " Scientific Use of the Imagination," p. 456.

A House of Cards. 69

are built up."^ When we ask for the reason
for this assertion, we are merely told that there
is "reason to suspect" so, and that "by the
different grouping of units, and by the com-
bination of the unlike groups each with its
own kind, and each with other kinds, it is
supposed that there have been produced the
kinds of matter we call elementary."* But,
for anything that appears to the contrary, the
" reason to suppose " all this, and the subsequent
supposing of it, exist only in Mr. Spencer's
own mind, and have their raison (Titre in the
exigencies of the "constructive philosophy."
Having however in this way " supposed " what-
ever he pleased, and having also justified his
method of procedure by saying that there was
" reason to suppose " so, he then in the very
next paragraph, and without adducing any
proof whatever, proceeds to treat these sup-
positions as if they were ascertained facts, and
builds on them as if he took them for solid
foundations. Thus : — " If then, WE SEE (!) that
by unlike arrangements of like units, all the
forms of matter, apparently so diverse in nature
may be produced," etc. etc.*

* "Principles of Psychology." Stereotjrped Edition.
Williams & Norgate, 1870, voL i. p. 155.
« Ibid. » Ibid.

76 Scientific Sophisms.

But this method of evolving science from
supposition, and conjuring with conjecture for
certainty, is by no means a monopoly of Mr.
Herbert Spencer. In one sentence of his Essay
on "Scientific Materialism," Professor Tyndall
states that ** we should on philosophic grounds
expect /^^«rf" certain physical conditions; and
in the next, he commences an induction, from this
mere expectation, with the phrase, " The relation
of physics to consciousness being thus invari-
able" ! ^ a relation which, if it exists at all,' does
certainly not exist in any demonstrable form —
so far is it from " being thus,^' or being in any
way other than that of " expectation " merely,
" invariable."

Similarly, when, in his controversy with Mr.
Martineau, he claims "consciousness" for the
fern and the oak, he says, " No man can say
that the feelings of the animal are not repre-
sented by a drowsier consciousness in the
vegetable world. At all events no line has
ever been drawn between the conscious and the
unconscious; for the vegetable shades into the
animal by such fine gradations, that it is
impossible to say where the one ends and the
other begins. . , , The evidences as to

* " Fragments of Science." Sixth Edition. Longmans,
1879, voL ii. p. 86.

A House of Cards. 71

consciousness in the vegetable world depend
wholly upon our capacity to observe and weigh
them." ^ What then ? This, evidently : that
since we are not possessed of any such
capacity ; and since, without that capacity the
evidence is non-existent ; it follows that there
is no evidence whatever "as to consciousness
in the vegetable world." But if there is a fatal
lack of evidence there is no lack of imagination ;
and Dr. TyndalFs imagination, always brilliant,
is fully equal to the occasion. He supposes
altered conditions for the observer, and then
says : " I can imagine not only the vegetable,
but the mineral world, responsive to the proper
irritants." * "I can imagine ! " What ? " Con-
sciousness " in a cabbage, and in a granite cube.
But on what evidence i None that I can find :
but plenty that " I can imagine ! "

In the same category with the suppositions
of Mr. Spencer and the imagination of Professor
Tyndall must be placed the conceptions of Mr.
Darwin. Like them, he has to assume as fun-
damental, certain propositions which he cannot
prove. But then if he cannot prove, he " can-
not doubt," or he "can hardly doubt;" and
this incapacity for doubt serves as a highly

' " Materialism and its Opponents," ut sup,, p. 595.
« Ibid.

72 Scientific Sophisms.

convenient substitute for certainty. Thus,
e,g.—

" I cannot doubt that the theory of descent
with modification embraces all the members of
the same class." ^ And again : " I can indeed
hardly doubt that all vertebrate animals having
true lungs, have descended, by ordinary genera-
tion from an ancient prototype, of which we
know nothing, furnished with a floating appa-
ratus or swim-bladder." " It is conceivable that
the now utterly lost branchiae might have been
gradually worked in by natural selection for
some quite distinct purpose, in the same
manner as ... it is probable that organs
which at a very ancient period served for respir-
ation, have been actually converted into organs
of flight."^

It would be sufficiently surprising, if we had
not been so long accustomed to it, to learn that
the possession of lungs which constitute the
fitness of the possessors for living, not in water,
but in air, betrays their aquatic origin.^ But it
is much more surprising that men illustrious in
virtue of their scientific eminence should expect

* " Origin of Species," p. 484.
' Ibid,^ p. 191.

' ^Land animals, which in their lungs or modified
swim-bladders betray their aquatic origin." {Jbid.y p. 196.)

A House of Cards. 73

a tissue of conjectures such as this to be ac-
cepted as if it possessed any scientific authority.
The branchiae are " now utterly lost ; " that is,
they are non-existent, except to the " imagina-
tion," to which "it is conceivable" that they
might once have been otherwise. That " ancient
mariner," the primeval ancestor of the human
race, was "an ancient prototype of which we
know nothing." And yet, strange to say, we
do know this : that he was " furnished with a
floating apparatus or swim-bladder." Some-
thing ** might have been " made of the missing
branchiae " for some quite distinct purpose ; "
for this, although not actual . is at least " con-
ceivable." Nay, it almost emerges from the
realm of the ideal when we are to be shown the
modus operandi^ — " in the same manner as " — as
what ? As in some other instance of which we
have tangible proof ? No, not that : but only as
in some other instance where "it is probable,"
or at least supposable, that "organs which at
a very ancient period " may or may not have
existed to serve a given end, would be of great
service to this theory if only it could be shown,
first, that they did exist, and then that they
ceased to exist, by having been " actually con-
verted " into other organs to serve another and
a very different end.

74 Scientific Sophisms.

Mr. Spencer "supposes;" Dr. Tyndall "im-
agines;" Mr. Darwin "conceives." Tier on
tier the towering fabric totters to its fall : no
stability in the foundation, no continuity in the
superstructure ; " a flimsy framework of hypo-
thesis, constructed upon imaginary or irrelevant
facts, with a complete departure from every
established canon of scientific investigation."

CHAPTER VI.
SOPHISMS,

" Cujusvis hominis est errare, nuUius, nisi insipientis,
in errore perseverare." — C/V., Philip, xii. 2,

" Ethical theism is now master of the situation. The
attempt to lose sight of the personal God in nature, or to
subordinate His Transcendence over the universe to any
power immanent in the universe, and especially the
tendency to deny the theology of ethics and to insist
only upon the reign of force, are utterly absurd^ and are
meeting their just condemnation.'* — Fichte (to Zeller).

CHAPTER VL

SOPHISMS.

" No stability in the foundation, no continuity
in the superstructure " ; "a flimsy framework of
hypothesis, constructed on imaginary facts." If
any one imagines that this is the language of
exaggeration or romance, let him turn to the
twenty-second chapter of Haeckers "Natural
History of Creation," where he will find a
complete and circumstantial history of human
ancestry in twenty-two stages of existence, from
the unicellular Monera up to the perfect man.
The theory of man's ape-descent thus constructed
is perfect — but it is in the air. It lacks but one
thing to give it relevance : and that one thing is
reality. Like the "chateaux en Espagne" of
the penniless Count, it exists only in the in-
terested imagination of the pretender.

Du Bois Reymond has incurred the bitter
and unappeasable wrath of Haeckel by declar-
ing this genealogical tree {Stammbaum) to be
as authentic in the eyes of a naturalist, as are

78 Scientific Sophisms.

the pedigrees of the Homeric heroes in those of
an historian. And no wonder ; for, unauthentic
and unreal as they are, they are indispensable.
Without them the theory of evolution has no
pretence to "continuity." But with their aid,
although the continuity which they confer is still
in nubibus, the argument is rounded with the
completeness of a circle. What are the proofs
of man's descent from the ape? The facts of
ontogenesis^ and phylogenesis and their corre-
spondence. Where are these facts enumerated }
In the twenty-second chapter of Haeckel's
** Natural History of Creation." What is the
authority for these facts ? Chiefly this : that
they are necessitated by the exigencies of the
theory. But where is the demonstrative evid-
ence, direct or indirect, that any creatures repre-
senting these twenty-two imaginary stages ever
existed ? In the majority of instances there is
no such evidence ; but they " must have existed,"
otherwise the theory would be imperfect

For example, the Monera^ according to
Haeckel, are our earliest "ancestors;" and of
these it is stated, — as if it were a plain historical

* Ontogenesis^ the history of individual development.
Phylogenesis^ the history of genealogical development
BiogenesiSy the history of life development generally.
(Haeckel.)

Sophisms. 79

fact, — that "they originated about the begin-
ning of the Laurentian period, by archebiosis
or spontaneous generation," from " so-called in-
organic compounds of carbon, hydrc^en, oxy-
gen, and nitrc^en."^ After what has been
already said of spontaneous generation,^ it is
almost superfluous to add that this assertion
about our earliest "ancestors" is not only
destitute, it is also incapable, of proof. And
yet the fundamental law {Grundgesetz) of on-
togenesis absolutely requires it.

Again. In his Munich Address, Haeckel re-
peats the trite old tale (" zis if it had not been
a hundred times blown into the 'infinite azure'")
that "the Monera, consisting of protoplasm
only, bridge over the deep chasm between
organic and inorganic nature, and show us how
the simplest and oldest organisms must have
originated from inorganic carbon compounds." *
Whereas, on the contrary, the simple fact is
that the Monera bridge over nothing whatever ;
nor do they show, in any conceivable way, how
life hcis originated from inorganic compounds.
Chemically and dynamically the protoplasm of

^ " Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte,'* p. 578.
' Vide sup,y p. 50 et seqq., especially p. 59.
' "Die Heutige Entwickelungslehre im Verhaltnisse
zur Gesammtwissenschaft," p. 13.

8o Scientific Sophisms.

these apparently simple organisms is just as far
removed from inorganic matter as is the proto-
plasm of the lion or the eagle.

Of another important group of "ancestors,"
the GastreadUy we are told that it " mtist have
existed in the primordial time, and must have
included amongst its members the direct ances-
tors of man." No one ever saw a single in-
dividual of this group ; that is a matter of
course. It is equally a matter of course that no
traces are to be found of its existence. But
the "certain proof "^ of that existence is sup-
posed to be found in the fact that the Am-
phioxus, at one period of its development,
presents a type similar to that of — of what?
Of the imaginary Gastraea whose existence had
to be proved ! Our ancestors, the worms, come
next ; and, like their predecessors, they " mtist
have existed," because without them we should
be at a loss how to derive higher worms, and
the articulata generally.

Professor Huxley, summarizing and review-
ing this volume of Haeckel's, is careful to
express his "entire concurrence with the general
tenor and spirit of the work," and his "high
estimate of its value." ^ Of the particular por-

* " Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 581.

^ " Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, P« 3i9-

Sophisms. 8 1

tion now under review, he says, — " In Professor
Haeckel's speculation on Phylogeny, or the
genealogy of animal forms, there is much that
is profoundly interesting, and his suggestions
are always supported by sound knowledge and
great ingenuity. Whether one agrees or dis-
agrees with him, one feels that he has forced
the mind into lines of thought in which it is
more profitable to go wrong than to stand
still.

"To put his views into a few words, he
conceives that all forms of life originally
commenced as Monera, or simple particles of
protoplasm ; and that these Monera originated
from not living matter. Some of the Monera
acquired tendencies towards the Protistic, others
towards the Vegetal, and others towards the
Animal modes of life. The last became animal
Moftera. Some of the animal Monera acquired
a nucleus, and became amceba-like creatures ;
and out of certain of these, ciliated infusorium-
like animals were developed. These became
modified into two stirpes : A, that of the
worms ; and B, that of the sponges. The latter
by progressive modification gave rise to all the
Ccelenterata ; the former to all other animals.
But A soon broke up into two principal stirpes,
of which one, a^ became the root of the Anne*

82 Scientific Sophisms,

liduy Echinodermata, and Arthropoda^ while the
other, b, gave rise to the Polyzoa and Ascidioida^
and produced the two remaining stirpes of the
Vertebrata and the MoUusca."^

Many persons will agree with Mr. Huxley so
far as to admit that Professor Haeckel is not
destitute either of "sound knowledge," or of
" great ingenuity," who yet think Mr. Huxley in
error when he represents his favourite Professor
as possessing these characteristics in combina-
tion. As displayed in his "speculations on
Phylogeny," they appear to be not so much in
combination as in opposition. Each invades
the province of the other. Take away the
"knowledge," and you clear the field for the
" ingenuity " : but where " sound knowledge " is
supreme, " great ingenuity " is superfluous. He
who finds it " more profitable to go wrong than
to stand still," may indeed display "great
ingenuity," but the soundness of his "know-
ledge " is by no means unquestionable.

Take, for example, this very summary of " his
views," as here given by Professor Huxley.
What he does " view " is something not actual
and real, but ideal only. He does not " prove " ;
he does not even assign reasons for belief ; but,

^ "Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, PP*
314, 315.

Sophisms. 83

like Mr. Darwin, he merely " conceives " a cer-
tain ideal origin of life. His Monera^ at first
"conceivable" only, and then "conceived,"
"acquired tendencies." But how did they
acquire them.? And how does he know that
they were acquired } The only answer is, that
they must have acquired them or they could
never have possessed them ; and they must
Jiave possessed them, or they could not "have
become animal Monera ; and they must have
become animal Moneray for without them
the theory breaks down, and the existence of
the animal world could be accounted for
only by admitting tlie doctrine of a special
creation. To meet the exigencies of the
theory therefore, these "simple particles," so
inexplicably "originated," and with "ten-
dencies " so inexplicably " acquired," at last, and
in some equally inexplicable manner, " became
animal Monera!^

"At last !" By no means : this is but another
beginning. Each tier of the hypothesis is
constructed only by a recurrence of the same
dogmatic assumptions. " Some of the animal
Monera acquired a nucleus, and became amoeba-
like creatures." "Great ingenuity.?" Un-
doubtedly : whatever the theory requires is
forthcoming on paper. The transformations

84 Scientific Sophisms.

are as surprising, as unaccountable, — and as
unreal, — as those which ingenuity, by means of
sleight of hand, brings out of a conjuror's hat.
But it is only conjuring after all ; and " sound
knowledge " is not imposed upon by sleight of
hand. These " simple particles " " originated,"
"acquired," "became," "were developed," "be-
came modified," "gave rise to," and "produced,"
"all forms of life." How? When.? Where?
No such origination has ever been witnessed.
No such evolution has ever been observed.
No such results have ever been produced. But
the theory requires them ; and consequently, to
meet the exigencies of the theory, here they are
— on paper.

Before dismissing " Professor Haeckel's specu-
lations on Phylogeny," there is one other point
that calls for special notice. His fundamental
postulates are these: "That all forms of life
originally commenced as Moneray or simple
particles of protoplasm ; and that these Monera
originated from not living matter." Yet he
himself is perfectly aware that these, his funda-
mental postulates, are not only "not proven,"
but are incapable of proof. "With respect to
spontaneous generation," says Mr. Huxley,*
"while admitting that there is no experimental
* ^ Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, ?• 3^

Sophisms. 85

evidence in its favour, Professor Haeckel denies
the possibility of disproving it, and points out
that the assumption that it has occurred is a
necessary part of the doctrine of evolution."
So be it. A more complete confirmation of
what has been already said on this subject it
would be impossible to desire. Evolution now,
of necessity, rests on "spontaneous generation:"
while spontaneous generation is at best an
" assumption " of which its most uncompromis-
ing advocate admits that " there is no experi-
mental evidence in its favour." So much the
worse for "the doctrine of Evolution."

The position assumed by Mr. Huxley himself
in reference to this subject is peculiar ; so pecu-
liar, indeed, that it had better be stated in his
own words. In his Presidential Address to
the British Association for the Advancement
of Science (1870), he discusses the conflicting
claims of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis^ in one of
the ablest and most lucid expositions ever given
of that problem. By the former term he de-
notes " the hypothesis that living matter always
arises by the agency of pre-existing living
matter;" the latter term denotes the contrary
doctrine — that living matter may be produced
by matter not living.

The first distinct enunciation of the hypo-

86 Scientific Sophisms,

thesis that all living matter has sprung from
pre-existing living matter, he traces not to our
great .countryman, Harvey, but to a contem-
porary though a junior of Harvey, and trained
in the same schools, Francesco Redi. And he
concludes his sketch of the progress of the
doctrine, and of the successive experiments by
which its truth has been established, in these
words : " So much for the history of the progress
of Redi's great doctrine of Biogenesis, which
appears to me, with the limitations I have
expressed, to be victorious along the whole line
at the present day."^

His own adhesion to this " great doctrine of
Biogenesis " is thus stated : " If in the present
state of science the alternative is offered us, —
either germs can stand a greater heat than has
been supposed, or the molecules of dead matter,
for no valid or intelligible reason that is as-
signed, are able to rearrange themselves into
living bodies, exactly such as can be demon-
strated to be frequently produced another way,
— I cannot understand how choice can be, even
for a moment, doubtful.

" But though I cannot express this conviction
of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard
myself against the supposition that I intend to
^ " Critiques and Addresses," p. 239.

Sophisms. 87

suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever
has taken place in the past, or ever will take
place in the future. With organic chemistry,
molecular physics, and physiology yet in their
infancy, and every day making prodigious strides,
I think it would be the height of presumption
for any man to say that the conditions under
which matter assumes the properties we call
' vital * may not some day be artificially brought
together. All I feel justified in affirming is,
that I see no reason for believing that the feat
has been performed yet"^

Analysing this declaration we have three
several propositions. Spontaneous generation
is a dogma for which "no valid or intelligible
reason is assigned." As between life derived
from antecedent life, and life derived from some-
thing that was not alive, Professor Huxley
"cannot understand how choice can be, even
for a moment, doubtful." And "this convic-
tion " of his he " cannot express too strongly."
At the same time, however, he is not quite sure
that the opposite of all this may not be also
true — of some possible future, or perhaps even
of some actual past.

But the climax is yet to come. The declara-
tion above quoted, — "All I feel justified in af-
^ " Critiques and Addresses," p. 238.

88 Scientific Sophisms.

firming is, that I see no reason for believing that
the feat has been performed yet," — rests on
reasons at once valid and intelligible, assignable
and assigned. Any declaration, therefore, an-
tagonistic to this, must of necessity be devoid
of reason. Yet such is precisely the declaration
which, in the very next paragraph, Professor
Huxley proceeds to make. "If it were given
me," he says, "to look beyond the abyss of
geologically-recorded time ... I should
expect to be a witness of the evolution of living
protoplasm from not living matter." ^ He would
"expect to witness," in that "remote period," the
performance of a feat which he sees " no reason
for believing " has ever " been performed yet."

Professor Tyndall believes that if a planet
were " carved from the sun, set spinning round
an axis, and revolving round the sun at a dis-
tance from him equal to that of our earth," ^
one of the " consequences of its refrigeration "
would be "the development of organic forms."
If you ask what reason can be assigned for this
belief, you are asked in turn, "Who will set
limits to the possible play of molecules in a
cooling planet .^"^

This conclusive question is suggestive of

^ "Critiques and Addresses," p. 239.
2 " Fragments of Science." Sixth Edition (1879), vol. ii.
p. 51. * Ibid,

Sophisms. 89

another :— " Who will set limits to the possible
play of Professor Tyndairs scientific imagina-
tion ?" Why should a cooling planet be so much
more likely to produce minute organisms, and to
develope " organic forms," than a cooling flask ?
Or, as Dr. Bastian pertinently puts it, " If such
synthetic processes took place then, why should
they not take place now ? Why should the
inherent molecular properties of various kinds of
matter have undergone so much alteration ? " ^

The opening sentences of the Belfast Address
are vitiated by a fallacy which reappears in
other places with the regularity of a recurring
decimal. "An impulse inherent in primeval
man," says Dr. Tyndall, "turned his thoughts
and questionings betimes towards the sources
of natural phenomena. The same impulse, in-
herited and intensified, is the spur of scientific
action to-day. Determined by it, by a process
of abstraction from experience we form physical
theories which lie beyond the pale of experience,
but which satisfy the desire of the mind to see
every natural occurrence resting upon a cause."

Now, since of this " primeval man " nothing
whatever is known, on what ground can it be
affirmed that he possessed the "inherent im-
pulse " here attributed to him ? All that is

^ " Beginnings of Life," Pref. p. x.

90 Scientific Sophisms.

known of him is that his " progenitors " " could
be not called human." ^ How came he then by
this " inherent " impulse — an impulse now " in-
herited " as the distinctive characteristic of all
mankind — yet not possessed by his non-human
ancestors, and therefore not derived from them ?
Inexplicable however as is this impulse, it is
as nothing when compared with the theories to
which it has given rise. The theories have been
invented to satisfy a desire of the mind : the
desire " to see every natural occurrence resting
upon a cause." And to satisfy this desire the
scientific imagination of to-day forms " physical
theories which lie beyond the pale of expe-
rience," and rest — upon nothing. If, as the same
eminent authority has told us, a "theoretic
conception" is a mere "intellectual figment,"
until it has been "verified" by V observation
and experiment," how is it possible that
" theories which lie beyond the pale of expe-
rience," should satisfy a mind that desires " to
see every natural occurrence resting upon a
cause " ? " Physical theories," to be satisfactory
to such a mind, must lie within — and not
beyond — the pale of experience.
" The porter sits down on the weight which he bore,"

* Professor Tyndall's (Birmingham Address) " Science
and Man," p. 6ii.

Sophisms. 9 1

says Wordsworth. And this he may do with
perfect safety, even on the parapet of London
Bridge; for that is within the pale of expe-
rience. But woe to the unlucky wight who,
in the attempt to satisfy his desire for rest,
ventures to sit down on some " abstraction "
outside the parapet; for that is "beyond the
pale of experience."

" Trace the line of life backwards," says our
Lucretian, "and see it approaching more and
more to what we call the purely physical con-
dition. . . . We break a magnet and find
two poles in each of its fragments. We con-
tinue the process of breaking ; but, however
small the parts, each carries with it, though
enfeebled, the polarity of the whole. And
when we can break no longer, we prolong the
intellectual vision to the polar molecules. Are
we not urged to do something similar in the case
of life ? . . . Believing as I do in the con-
tinuity of Nature, I cannot stop abruptly where
our microscopes cease to be of use. Here the
vision of the mind authoritatively supplements
the vision of the eye. By an intellectual neces-
sity I cross the boundary of the experimental
evidence, and discern in Matter . . . the
promise and potency of all terrestrial Life." ^

* " Belfast Address," p. 55.

92 Scientific Sophisms.

This "potency" of matter, then, when dis-
cerned at all, is discerned only "beyond the
pale of experience," "across the boundary of
experimental evidence." Scientifically, there-
fore, it is non-existent ; a mere " intellectual
figment," the product of an imaginary " intel-
lectual necessity " : an " unverified theoretic
conception," nothing more ; and this only when
it has been actually "discerned." But, as
simple matter of fact, it has never yet been
actually discerned. Professor Tyndall himself
has not thus discerned it. What he here calls
discernment he elsewhere calls the scientific use
of the Imagination. It is he himself who war-
rants the affirmation that this alleged " potency
of all terrestrial Life " has not been discerned
in Matter at all ; it has only been imagined.
" Conscious life " is a part, and the principal
part, of " all terrestrial life." Has the life of a
fern or an oak this potential " consciousness " ?
It is Dr. Tyndall who answers, " No man can
tell." ^ Does pig iron possess this potency of
conscious cogitation } or does the loftiest granite
needle of the Alps cheer its eternal solitude
with the reflection, " CogitOy ergo sum " f There

^ "Materialism and its Opponents," Fortnightly Re-
vieWy vol. xviii. p. 595. " Fragments of Science," Intro-
duction.

Sophisms, 93

is no answer. They make no sign. No such
promise or potency is exhibited, and it is there-
fore no wonder that it is not discerned. But
alter the conditions of discernment, says Dr.
Tyndall, and then " I can imagine not only the
vegetable, but the mineral world, responsive to
the proper irritants." ^ Not, "I have discerned";
nor even I can discern ; but only " I can
imagine ! "

And here the matter might be left, were it
not that Dr. Tyndall has himself compelled us
to ask whether he has not estimated too highly
his own power of imagination. For how can
even he imagine that which he himself tells us
is unimaginable.? The passage from physics
to consciousness, he tells us,^ ** is unthinkable."
"You cannot satisfy the human understanding
in Its demand for logical continuity between
molecular processes and the phenomena of con-
sciousness. This is a rock on which materialism
must inevitably split whenever it pretends to be
a complete philosophy of life."* Nor would
the result be altered if even the experiment
could be made under the altered conditions

^ "Materialism and its Opponents,'* Fortnightly Re-
view^ vol. xviii. p. 595. " Fragments of Science,'* Intro-
duction.

2 Ibid, p. 589. » " Belfast Address," p. 33.

94 Scientific Sophisms.

which in the passage above cited, it was found
necessary to hypothecate. "Alter the capa-
city " of the observer, it was then said, " and
the evidence would alter too." ^ Yet here,
only six pages earlier, in the very same paper,
we are told : " Were our minds and senses so
expanded, strengthened, and illuminated, as to
enable us to see and feel the very molecules of
the brain ; were we capable of following all
their motions, all their groupings, all their
electric discharges, if such there be ; and were
we intimately acquainted with the correspond-
ing states of thought and feeling, we should
be as far as ever from the solution of the
problem, *How are these physical processes
connected with the facts of consciousness ? '
The chasm between the two classes of pheno-
mena would still remain intellectually im-
passable." ^

Yet notwithstanding all this. Dr. Tyndall
formally proclaims his "belief" "in the ^^«/m-
uity of Nature." The " continuity " of an " im-
passable chasm " ! A chasm " intellectually im-
passable " ; and yet " by an intellectual neces-
sity" he crosses it "Two classes of pheno-
mena," and no possible means of transition

^ " Materialism and its Opponents,'' p. 595.
2 Ibid., p. 589.

Sophisms. 95

from one to the other. For, in order to " dis-
cern in matter the promise " of conscious life,
we must be able, by observation of its merely
physical movements, to forecast, in a world
as yet insentient, the future phenomena of
thought and feeling. Yet this is precisely the
transition which is pronounced "unthinkable."
" We do not possess the intellectual organ,
nor apparently any rudiment of the organ,
which would enable us to pass, by a process
of reasoning, from the one to the other.
They appear together, but we do not know
whyr ^

It is an instructive spectacle. Professor
Huxley " expecting " to witness, in the remote
past, the performance of a feat which he sees
"no reason for believing" has ever yet been
performed ; and Professor Tyndall, " by an in-
tellectual necessity " and a " vision of the mind,"
crossing "the chasm" "intellectually impass-
able" which separates two classes of pheno-
mena, although he does " not possess the intel-
lectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of
the organ, which would enable him to pass, by
a process of reasoning, from the one to the
other."

* " Materialism and its Opponents," p. 589.

96 Scientific Sophisms.

Horace was undoubtedly right : —
" . . . quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus/' *

But had he hVed in our time, and written of
the Homers of modern materialism ; had he
heard their conjectural hypotheses, their con-
flicting asseverations, their autocratic dogma-
tism ; —

" Matter is the origin of all that exists ; all
natural and mental forces are inherent in it " : ^
"All the natural bodies with which we are
acquainted are equally living: the distinction
which has been held as existing between the
living and the dead does not really exist :''^
" The eternal is the nothing of nature : " "There
is no other science than that which treats of
nothing :" * " Holothuriae engender snails ;" ^ and
" gazing upon a snail, one believes that he finds
the prophesying goddess sitting upon the tri-
pod ; " for " a snail is an exalted symbol of
mind, slumbering deeply within itself : " * while

1 " Ars Poet.," 359.

2 Buchner's " Kraft und Stoff.'' (Collingwood's Transla-
tion) p. 32.

' " Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte." By Dr. Ernst
HaeckeL Sixth Edition, p. 21.

* " Physiophilosophy ** of Prof. Oken.
« Buchner's " Kraft und Stoff,'' p. 80.

• Oken.

Sophisms. 97

'* Self-consciousness is a living ellipse : " ^ and
Man is merely an automaton, though " a con-
scious automaton ;" an " automaton endowed
with free will : " ^ —

Had Horace heard all this, he would have
had something more to say about this snail-like
"mind, slumbering deeply;" and would have
used a much stronger word than " quandoque."

1 Oken.

^ Prof. Huxley, in The Fortnightly Review^ November,

1874, p. 577.

CHAPTER VII.
PROTOPLASM.

" I bid you beware that, in accepting these conclusions,
you are placing your feet on the first rung of a ladder
which, in most people's estimation, is the reverse of
Jacob's, and leads to the antipodes of heaven.'' — Prof,
Huxley,

" A dangerous and degrading speculation." — Sir David
Brewster,

xoo

CHAPTER VII.
PROTOPLASM.

The word " protoplasm " was invented in the
year 1846, by the eminent German botanist
Von Mohl, as a name for one portion of those
nitrogenous contents of the cells of living
plants, the close chemical resemblance of which
to the essential constituents of living animals
had been in that same year, emphatically
pointed out by the botanist Payen. But if,
pushing our investigation beyond the origin of
the name, we inquire as to the nature of the
thing, and ask What is Protoplasm ? the answer
to that question involves a reference to the
historical progress of the physiological cell
theory.

That theory may be said to have wholly
grown up since Dr. John Hunter wrote his
celebrated work " On the Nature of the Blood."
According to Dr. Hunter, new growths de-
pended on an exudation of the plasma of the
blood, in which, by virtue of its own plasticity,

lot

I02 Scientific Sophisms.

vessels formed, and conditioned the further pro-
gress. When, at a later date, the conception of
a cell had been arrived at, Schleiden, for start-
ing point, required an intracellular plasma,
and Schwann, a structureless exudation, in
which minute granules, if not indeed already
pre-existent, formed, and by aggregation grew
into nuclei, round which singly the production
of a membrane at length enclosed a cell.
Brown demonstrated a nucleus in the vegetable
cell ; as Valentin subsequently did in the
animal one ; Miiller insisted on the analogy be-
tween animal and vegetable tissue; Schwann's
labour in completing the theory of the animal
cell may be regarded as completing the first
stage of the cell theory : but the raising it to
the second stage must be attributed to the
wonderful ability of Virchow. And it is to the
resolution of this second stage that we owe the
word Protoplasm.

In Virchow's view, the body constituted a
free state of individual subjects, with equal
rights but unequal capacities. These were the
cells, which consisted each of an enclosing
membrane, and an enclosed nucleus with sur-
rounding intracellular matrix or matter. These
cells propagated themselves, chiefly by partition
or division ; and the fundamental principle of

Protoplasm. 103

the entire theory was expressed in the dictum,
" Omnis cellula e cellular

The first step in resolution of this theory was
the elimination of the investing membrane.
Such membrane may and does ultimately form ;
but in the first instance, for the most part, the
cell is naked. The second step was the elimin-
ation, or at least the subordination, of the
nucleus. The nucleus is now discovered to be
necessary neither to the division nor to the
existence of the cell.

Thus, then, stripped of its membrane, relieved
of its nucleus, what now remains for the cell ?
Nothing, but that which was the contained
matter, the intracellular matrix, and is — Proto-
plasm.

The application of the word, however, to the
element in question, like the history of the
thing, was marked by several stages. First
came Dujardin's discovery of sarcode. Then,
as above mentioned. Von Mohl's introduction
of the term protoplasm as the name for the
layer of the vegetable cell that lined the cellu-
lose, and enclosed the nucleus. Cohn, four
years later, proclaimed "the protoplasm of the
botanist, and the contractile substance and
sarcode of the zoologist" to be, "if not identical,
yet in a high degree analogous substances."

I04 Scientific Sophisms.

Remak first extended the use of the term pro-
toplasm from the layer which bore that name in
the vegetable cell to the analogous element in
the animal cell ; but " it was Max Schultze, in
particular, who by applying the name to the
intracellular matrix, or contained matter, when
divested of membrane, and by identifying this
substance itself with sarcode, first fairly estab-
lished protoplasm, name and thing, in its
present position."

In England, however, it is Professor Huxley
who, by his brilliant and well-known Essay on
this subject in the Fortnightly Review for Feb-
ruary, 1869, has acquired a prominence, though
by no means a pre-eminence, all his own. Tak-
ing for his theme the " Physical Basis of Life,"
and treading in the track of that " host of in-
vestigators " of whom he tells us that they
" have accumulated evidence, morphological,
physiological, and chemical," in favour of that
*' immense unit6 de composition 616mentaire
dans tous les corps vivants de la nature," of
which Payen wrote so clearly nearly thirty-five
years ago ; he combats " the widely-spread
conception of life as a something which works
through matter, but is independent of it";
and affirms, on the contrary, " that matter and
life are inseparably connected, and that there is

Protoplasm. 105

one kind of matter which is common to all
living beings."

Notwithstanding the wide diversity that pre-
sents itself to our view in the countless varieties
of living beings, it yet is true that all vegetable
and animal tissues without exception, from that
of the brightly coloured lichen on the rock, to
that of the painter who admires or of the
botanist who dissects it, are essentially one in
composition and in structure. The microscopic
fungi clustering by millions within the body of a
single fly, the giant pine of California towering
to the height of a cathedral spire, the Indian
fig-tree covering acres with its profound shadow,
animalcules minute enough to dance in myriads
on the point of a needle, and the huge leviathan
of the deep, the flower that a girl wears in her
hair, and the blood that courses through her
veins, are, each and all, smaller or larger multi-
ples or aggregates of one and the same structural
unit, and all therefore ultimately resolvable
into the same identical elements. That unit
is a corpuscle composed of oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen, and carbon. Hydrogen, with oxygen,
forms water ; carbon, with oxygen, carbonic
acid ; and hydrogen, with nitrogen, ammonia,
These three compounds — water, carbonic acid,
and ammonia, — in like manner, when combined
form protoplasm.

io6 Scientific Sophisms,

In all this, however, there is nothing new but
the nomenclature. ^ But the case is widely
altered when Mr. Huxley proceeds to assert
that amid all the diversities of living things and
living beings there exists a threefold unity : a
unity of faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of
substance. In relation to the first of these, for
example, faculty, power, activity ; according
to Mr. Huxley, even human activities must be
referred to three categories — contractility, ali-
mentation, and reproduction ; and for the lower
forms of life, whether animal or vegetable, there
are no fewer than these same three. The
granulated, semi-fluid layer which constitutes
the lining of the woody case of the nettle-sting
is possessed of contractility. And in this
possession of contractile substance, other plants
are as the nettle, and all animals are as plants.
Protoplasm is common to the whole of them ;
and this lining in the sting of the nettle is pro-
toplasm. So that between the powers of the
lowest plant or animal and those of the highest,
the difference is one not of kind, but only of
degree. The colourless blood-corpuscles in

^ And this nomenclature, though new, is by no means
improved. It is inexact, indefinite, indiscriminate, and
therefore necessarily misleading. See below ; especially
pages 132, 135-142.

Protoplasm. 107

man and the other animals are identical with
the protoplasm of the nettle ; and he, not less
than they, at first consisted of nothing more
than an aggregation of such corpuscles. Pro-
toplasm is their common constituent ; in proto-
plasm they have their common origin. At last,
as at first, all that lives, and every part of all
that lives, is but — nucleated or unnucleated,
modified or unmodified — protoplasm.

This series of assertions culminates in a
dogma still more astounding. Protoplasm, from
being " the basis," becomes " the matter of life."
Apart from this matter, life is unknown. The
" phenomena of life," however vast and varied,
exhibit neither force nor faculty that is not
derived from the chemical constituents of its
material " basis." All the activities of life —
vegetable, animal, human ; physical, intellec-
tual, religious — arise solely (we are told) from
" the arrangement of the molecules of ordinary
matter." What reason is there, for instance,
why thought should not be termed a property
of thinking protoplasm, just as congelation is a
property <rf>water, or centrifugience of gas ?
Professor Huxley protests that he is aware of
no reason. We call, he says, the several pheno-
mena which are peculiar to water "the pro-
perties of water, and do not hesitate to believe

io8 Scientific Sophisms.

that in some way or other they result from the
properties of the component elements of water.
We do not assume that something called
aquosity entered into and took possession of the
oxide of hydrogen as soon as it was formed,
and then guided the aqueous particles to their
places in the facets of the crystal or among the
leaflets of the hoar-frost" Why, then, " when
carbonic acid, water, and ammonia disappear,
and in their place, under the influence of pre-
existing protoplasm, an equivalent weight of
the matter of life makes its appearance," should
we assume, in the living matter, the existence
of "a something which has no representative
or correlative in the unliving matter that gave
rise to it"? Why imagine that into the newly
formed hydro-nitrogenised oxide of carbon a
something called vitality entered and took
possession? "What better philosophic status
has vitality than aquosity ?"

These questions, as will presently appear,
present no difficulty. They admit of answers
too complete to leave room for further question.
The only difficulty is that which presents itself
when we attempt to determine Professor Hux-
ley's relation to them. For incredible as it
must seem to those not acquainted with the
facts, the propositions above cited are at once

Protoplasm. 109

the subject of his affirmation and of his denial.
Dr. Stirling concludes his refutation of them in
a sentence to which Professor Huxley has at-
tempted a reply. The sentence is this: —

*'*' In short, the whole position of Mr. Huxley, that all
organisms consist alike of the same life-matter, which
life-matter is, for its part, due only to chemistry, must be
* pronounced untenable,' — nor less untenable the material-
ism he would found on it." ^

And this is the reply: —

" The paragraph contains three distinct assertions con-
cerning my views, and just the same number of utter mis-
representations of them." The first [that " all organisms
consist alike of the same life-matter"] "turns on the
ambiguity of the word ' same ' " ; the second [that this
" life-matter is due only to chemistry "] " is in my judg-
ment absurd, and certainly I have never said anything
resembling it ; while as to Number 3, one great object
of my Essay ' was to show that what is called * mate-
rialism ' has no sound philosophical basis." '

^ "As Regards Protoplasm." By James Hutchinson
Stirling, F.R.C.S., and LL.D. Edinburgh. Longmans,
1872, p. 58.

'^ " * One great object of my Essay,' says Mr. Huxley !
Yes, truly; but what of the other — great, greater, and
greatest — object ? * Utter misrepresentation ! ' The only

utter misrepresentation concerned here is Pshaw ! the

whole thing is beneath speech." ("As Regards Proto-
plasm," ut sup., p. 59.)

' " Yeast," in " Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan,
i873» P- 90-

1 1 o Scientific Sophisms,

In rejoinder, Dr. Stirling cites " Mr. Huxley's
own phrases" to prove that the alleged am-
biguity does not exist : " There is such a thing
as a physical basis or matter of life ; " . . .
or " the physical basis or matter of life." There
is " a single physical basis of life," and through
its unity, " the whole living world " is pervaded
by **a threefold unity" — "namely a unity of
power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity
of substantial composition."

On the second point ; that " life-matter " is
" due only to chemistry," Dr. Stirling is " pleased
to think that Mr. Huxley has now come to
consider such an opinion * absurd,' " but repeats
that "he has always, and everywhere, for all
that, described his * life-matter as due to
chemistry,'" and adds, "Here are a few ex-
amples : " —

" * If the properties of water may be properly said to
result from the nature and disposition of its component
molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing
to say that the properties of protoplasm result from the
nature and disposition of its molecules.'

"Is It possible for words more definitely to
convey the statement that the properties of
water and protoplasm are precisely on the same
level, and that as the former are of molecular
(physical, chemical) origin, so are the latter.^

Protoplasm. 1 1 1

Again, after having told us that protoplasm is
carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, 'which cer-
tainly possess no properties but those of ordinary
matter,' he proceeds to speak as follows: —

" * Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are all life-
less bodies. Of these, carbon and oxygen unite in certain
proportions, and under certain conditions, to give rise to
carbonic acid ; hydrogen and oxygen produce water ;
nitrogen and hydrogen give rise to ammonia. These new
compounds, like the elementary bodies of which they are
composed, are lifeless.'

"So far then, surely, I am allowed to say
that these new compounds are dtie to chemistry.
Observe now what follows: —

" * But when they ' (the compounds) ' are brought to-
gether, under certain conditions, they give rise to the
still more complex body protoplasm, and this protoplasm
exhibits the phenomena of life. I see no break in this
series of steps in molecular complication, and I am un-
able to understand why the language which is applicable
to any one term of the series may not be used to any of
the others.'

" Here, evidently, I am ordered by Mr. Hux-
ley himself, not to change my language, but
to characterise these latter results as I charac-
terised those former ones. If I spoke then of
ammonia, etc., as due to chemistry, so must
I now speak of protoplasm, life-matter, as due
to chemistry — a statement which Mr. Huxley

1 1 2 Scientific Sophisms.

not only orders me to make, but makes himself.
Very curious all this, then. When I do what
he bids me do, when I say what he says — ^that
if ammonia, etc., are due to chemistry, proto-
plasm is also due to chemistry— Mr. Huxley
turns round and calls out that I am saying an
'absurdity,' which he, for his part, 'certainly
never said ! ' But let me make just one other
quotation : —

" *• When hydrogen and oxygen are mixed in a certain
proportion, and an electric spark is passed through them,
they disappear, and a quantity of water equal in weight
to the sum of their weights appears in their place.'

" Now, no one in his senses will dispute that
this is a question of chemistry, and of nothing
but chemistry; but it is Mr. Huxley himself
who asks in immediate and direct reference
here : —

" ' Is the case in any way changed when carbonic acid,
water, and anmionia disappear, and in their place, under
the influence of pre-existing living protoplasm, an equiva-
lent weight of the matter of life makes its appearance ?'

" Surely Mr. Huxley has no object whatever
here but to place before us the genesis of proto-
plasm, and surely also this genesis is a purely
chemical one! The very 'influence of pre-
existing living protoplasm,' — which pre-existence

Protoplasm. 1 1 3

could not itself exist for the benefit of the first
protoplasm that came into existence, — is asserted
to be in precisely the same case with reference
to the one process as that of tl^e electric spark
with reference to the other. And yet, in the
teeth of such passages, Mr. Huxley feels himself
at liberty to say now, 'Statement Number 2
is, in my judgment, absurd, and certainly I have
never said anything resembling it^ It is a pity
to see a man in the position of Mr. Huxley so
strangely forget himself! "

On the third head — Mr. Huxley's "mate-
rialism" — Dr. Stirling's refutation is equally
conclusive, but at the same time, much too
elaborate to admit of quotation here. No
summary could do it justice; it must be read
in its entirety. In this place, however, it does
not concern us. It lies outside the sphere of
our investigation. We are not now inquiring
what esoteric meaning may be attached by
Mr. Huxley to the language he has chosen to
employ; nor even are we inquiring whether
that language is compatible with any such
meaning whatever. Our inquiry is much more
simple. It is limited to the question of fact.
Is it certain, is it demonstrable, is it scientifically
true that the facts of the case are as stated by
Mr. Huxley ? On this very question of " mate-

114 Scientific Sophisms.

rialism," for instance, Mr. Huxley asserts that
"all vital action" is but "the result of the
molecular forces" of the physical basis; and
consequently, to use his own words when ad-
dressing his Edinburgh audience, " the thoughts
to which I am now giving utterance, and your
thoughts regarding them, are but the expression
of molecular changes in that matter of life
which is the source of our other vital phe-
nomena." With these words in their recollec-
tion, few persons would be disposed to differ
from Mr. Huxley when he says that "most
undoubtedly the terms of his propositions are
distinctly materialistic."

But are they true?

" I know of no form of negation sufficiently
explicit, comprehensive, and emphatic in which
to reply to this question." The doctrines of
Scientific Materialism, as above stated, in Pro-
fessor Huxley's own words, are " so utterly at
variance with the most familiar facts of chemis-
try that it is marvellous they should have so
long passed unchallenged." ^

I. To enter into detail. It is in no sense true

* " Unchallenged, that is," adds Dr. Elam, " on purely
chemical grounds. On other issues, both relevant and
irrelevant, they have been often objected to."

Protoplasm. 1 1 5

that protoplasm "breaks up" (as Professor
Huxley says it does) ^ into carbonic acid, water,
and ammonia, any more than it is true that
iron, when exposed to the action of oxygen,
" breaks up " into oxide of iron. A compound
body can break up only into its constituent
parts ; and these are not the constituent parts
of protoplasm. "To convert protoplasm into
these three compounds requires an amount of
oxygen nearly double the weight of the original
mass of protoplasm; speaking approximately,
every 100 lbs. of protoplasm would require 170
lbs. of oxygen."

2. " Under certain conditions," says Professor
Huxley,^ whereas, in point of fact, under no
possible ^* conditions'^ can carbonic acid, water,
and ammonia, when brought together, " give rise
to the still more complex body protoplasm."
•* Not even on paper can any multiple, or any
combination whatever of these substances, be

^ " The matter of life . . . breaks up . , . into car-
bonic acid, water, and ammonia, which certainly possess
no properties but those of ordinary matter." (Professor
Huxley, in The Fortnightly Review^ February, 1869.}

' " But when they [the " lifeless compounds " carbonic
acid, water, and ammonia] are brought together, under
certain conditions, they give rise to the still more com-
plex body protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the
phenomena of life." {Ibid,)

1 1 6 Scientific Sophisms.

made to represent the composition of proto-
plasm ; much less can it be effected in practice.
Carbonic acid (CO2), water (Hg O), and ammonia
(NHj), cannot by any combination be brought
to represent d^ H^g N^ Oio, which is the equiva-
lent of protein or protopleism.

3. " But the most incredible of all the errors,
if it be not simply a mystification, is found in
the comparison between the formation of water
from its elements and the origination of proto-
plasm. Hydrogen and oxygen doubtless unite
to form an equivalent weight of water ; that
is, an amount of water equalling in weight the
combined weights of the hydrogen and the
oxygen ; and Professor Huxley asks, * Is the
case in any way changed when carbonic acid,
water, and ammonia disappear, and in their
place, under the influence of pre-existing proto-
plasm, an equivalent weight of the matter of
life makes its appearance ? '

" The answer is. Certainly ; the case is
changed in every possible way in which a
process, whether chemical or otherwise, can be
changed. But it must also be premised that
the fact as stated is not truCy that when these
three substances disappear, under certain con-
ditions, an * equivalent weight of the matter of
life makes its appearance.' Every chemist

Protoplasm. 1 1 7

knows what an * equivalent weight ' means ;
knows also that there can be no weight of
protoplasm 'equivalent,' chemically speaking,
to any amount of carbonic acid, water, and
ammonia, that may or can have disappeared.
These are simple, well-known, and understood
chemical facts, and need no discussion.

4. " But granting for the moment, and for the
sake of argument, that these bodies disappear,
and that protoplasm appears, it is manifest —
almost too manifest to require stating — that there
is no resemblance whatever in the two processes
by which the results which Professor Huxley

considers identical are obtained. In the for-

•

mation of water, the whole of its constituent
parts combine to form an equal weight of the
compound ; the case is entirely otherwise with
regard to protoplasm, for here the so-called
elements do not combine at all. On the con-
trary, they are uncombined or decomposed, by
a process and by affinities most eissuredly un-
known in our laboratories. The carbonic acid
and the ammonia are certainly decomposed, and
whilst the carbon and nitrogen are assimilated,
and add to the bulk of the plant, part of the
oxygen is eliminated by the leaves, and part is
destined to the performance of various functions
in the economy."

ii8 Scientific Sophisms.

And yet it is in this complex programme of
decomposition, selection, fixation, and rejection,
that we are asked to see nothing more than a
process analogous to the formation of water
from its elements ; and Professor Huxley can
see " no break." How wide must a chasm be
before it is visible to an Evolutionist ?

5. "Under certain conditions" only, and not
otherwise, do the "lifeless compounds" afore-
said " give rise to the still more complex body
protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the
phenomena of life." What are these conditions ?
The answer is that " when carbonic acid, water,
and ammonia disappear, and in their place," "an
equivalent weight of the matter of life makes its
appearance," this appearance and disappearance
are due to " the influence of pre-existing proto-
plasm."

From this it has been hastily, but most un-
warrantably, assumed that vitality is a result of
some particular arrangement of the molecular
particles, the chemical constituents of proto-
plasm. In other words, that life is a product
of protoplasm. But this proposition is demon-
strably untrue.

Protoplasm, as known to us, is non-existent
except as produced " under the influence of pre-
existing protoplasm." Water, ammonia, and

Protoplasm. 119

carbonic acid cannot combine to form proto-
plasm unless a principle of life preside over
the operation. Unless under those auspices, the
combination never takes place. At present,
whenever assuming its presidential functions,
this principle of life appears invariably to be
embodied in pre-existing protoplasm ; but no
one denies that there was a time when the fact
was otherwise. Time was — as geology leaves
no room for doubt — when our globe consisted
wholly of inorganic matter, and possessed not
one single vegetable or animal inhabitant. In
that time it was not only possible for life, with-
out being previously embodied, to mould and
vivify inert matter, but the possible was the
actual too. For if matter, inorganic and inani-
mate, had not been organized and animated by
unembodied life, it would have remained inor-
ganic and inanimate to this day. Those who
would escape this conclusion have only one
possible alternative. They must suppose that
death gave birth to life. That matter, absolutely
inert and lifeless, did spontaneously exert itself
with all the marvellous energy indispensable for
its conversion into living matter. That in mak-
ing this exertion it wielded powers of which
it was not possessed ; powers which, under
the conditions of the case, it could not have

120 Scientific Sophisms.

acquired, except by exercising them before it
had acquired them. That, absolutely inert as it
was, it yet made this impossible exertion ; and,
lifeless as it was, it created life.

To reject incredible absurdities like these is
to admit that originally protoplasm must have
been produced by life not previously embodied ;
but to admit this and yet to suppose that when,
as now, embodied life is observed to give birth
to new embodiments, the operative force be-
longs not to the life itself, but to its protoplas-
mic embodiment, is " much the same as to sup-
pose that when a tailor, dressed in clothes of
his own making, makes a second suit of clothes,
this latter is the product not of the tailor him-
self, but of the clothes he is wearing." ^ Life
therefore is not a product of protoplasm.

6. Nor is it a property of protoplasm.

By the property of an object is meant, in
scientific speech, not merely something belong-
ing to the object, but also that it is a thing
without which the object could not subsist
Thus, fluidity, solidity, and vaporisation are
"properties" of water, because matter which
did not liquefy, congeal, and evaporate at

* " Old-fashioned Ethics, and Common-sense Meta-
physics.** By William Thomas Thornton. Macmillan,
1873, chap. iv. p. 167. (" Huxleyism.")

Protoplasm. 121

difierent temperatures would not be water. It
is the exhibition of these phenomena, in con-
junction with certain others, that constitutes the
" aquosity " or wateriness of water. But in no
such sense, nor in any sense whatever, is life or
"vitality" essential to that species of matter
which Mr. Huxley calls "matter of life," or
protoplasm. Take from water its aquosity,
and water ceases to be water; but you may
take away vitality from protoplasm, and yet,
according to Mr. Huxley's own affirmation,^
leave protoplasm as much protoplasm as be-
fore. Whatever therefore may be the relation
which vitality bears to protoplasm, it is a re-
lation totally different from that which aquo-
sity bears to water. When therefore Professor
Huxley asks : " What better philosophic status
has vitality than aquosity } " we answer : — Pro-
toplasm can do perfectly well without "vital-
ity;" but water cannot for a moment dispense
with " aquosity." " Protoplasm, whether living
or lifeless, is equally itself; but unaqueous
water is unmitigated gibberish." * Since then,
as Mr. Huxley affirms, protoplasm even when

^ ^^ Living or deadi^ says Mr. Huxley : " If the pheno-
mena exhibited by water are its properties, so are those
presented by protoplasm, living or dead, its properties."

' Thornton's " Old-fashioned Ethics,** ut sup.y p. 165.

122 Scientific Sophisms.

deprived of its vitality is still protoplasm, it
is axiomatically evident that vitality is not in-
dispensable to protoplasm, and is therefore not
a " property " of protoplasm.

7. But this question of Mr. Huxley's is fur-
ther noticeable on account of the connection in
which it is found ; a connection highly signifi-
cant in relation to its author's disclaimer of
" materialism." In varying phrase, but always
to the same effect, in three short consecutive
sentences he thrice reiterates the question : —

" What justification is there then for the assumption of
the existence in the living matter of a something which
has no representative or correlative in the not-living mat-
ter that gave rise to it ? What better philosophic status
has vitality than aquosity? And why should vitality
hope for a better fate than the other itys which have dis-
appeared since Martinus Scriblerus accounted for the
operation of the meat-jack by its inherent meat-roasting
quality, and scorned the materialism of those who ex-
plained the turning of the spit by a certain mechanism
worked by the draught of the chimney ? " *

" This," replies Dr. Elam, " is very amusing
— no one can be more so than Professor Huxley ;
— a little perception of facts and analogies
would make it perfect The answer is obvious,
if answer is required. All these are machines

* Fortnightly Review ^ February, 1869, p. 140.

Protoplasm. 123

which man has made, and can again make by
the use of well-known forces and material
which he can combine at will ; it is not there-
fore necessary to hypothecate any other force
or principle. When man can make any, even
the simplest organism, out of inorganic matter,
then shall we be compelled to acknowledge
that chemical and other forces are sufficient,
and that the hypothesis of a vital principle
has had its day and may cease to be. To
Professor Huxley's illustration I will respond
seriously when he has demonstrated to me
that meat-jacks have been developed from
the beginning of time only and exclusively
under the immediate contact and influence of
pre-existing meat-jacks. Until then the analogy
is scarcely close enough to need refutation or
discussion." ^

8. Mr. Huxley, as above cited, refuses to
recognise the distinction between dead proto-
plasm and that which lives. Other authorities
however, and especially the Germans who have
led the way in this investigation, say expressly
that whether the same elements are to be
referred to the protoplasmic cells equally after
death as before it is a matter entirely unknown.
While this is so it is evident that Mr. Huxley's

* Contemporary Review^ September, 1876, p. 558 etseq.

124 Scientific Sophisms.

chemical analysis of dead protoplasm cannot
be regarded as decisive for that which is not
dead. And yet, throughout his whole argument,
he builds on this same chemical analysis as
if it were decisive. Thus he speaks of mutton
as "once the living protoplasm," now the
" same matter altered by death " and cookery,
but yet as not being by these alterations ren-
dered " incompetent to resume its old functions
as matter of life." ^ He speaks of its being
subjected to *^ subtle influences^' which "will
convert the dead protoplasm into the living
protoplasm" — which will "raise the complex
substance of dead protoplasm to the higher
power, as one may say, of living protoplasm." *
In all this, as throughout, when he speaks of
dead matter of life and living matter of life,
not only is there no hint of any difference in
chemical constitution, or in "arrangement of
molecules," between the dead and the living,
but when, in anticipation of such difference,
he alludes to it at all, it is only to pronounce
it " frivolous." ^

So be it. Let the identity of protoplasm,
"living or dead," as assumed by Mr. Huxley,

^ Fortnightly Review^ February, 1869, p. 137.
' Ibid,^ p. 138.
* Ibid,^ p. 135.

Protoplasm. 125

be — at least for the moment, and for the
sake of the argument — conceded. What then ?
The properties of protoplasm, as we have seen,
are altogether dependent upon the arrangement
of its constituent atoms. But protoplasm in
one of these conditions (i,e,y dead) manifests
passive properties only ; while, in the opposite
condition, — without any change, ue,^ any known
or knowable change, in its chemical properties
or molecular arrangement, — we find it exer-
cising a vast variety of active properties, as-
similation, contraction, reproduction ; not to
mention thought, feeling, and will. Here then
we have an effect, or rather a whole train of
effects most marvellous, — without a causey a
conclusion that the most enthusiastic Evolu-
tionist would hesitate to pronounce in " general
harmony with scientific thought." ^ From this
impossible, and yet inevitable conclusion there
is no possible escape except (i) by hypo-
thecating a change, mechanical or chemical, of
which, by Professor Huxley's own confession,
we can have no possible knowledge, ^ and on
which therefore " we have no right to speculate ;*'

1 " Belfast, Address," ut sup,, p. 58 : " The strength of
the doctrine of evolution consists ... in its general
harmony with scientific thought."

2 Fortnightly Review,

126 Scientific Sophisms.

or (2) by confessing that the " subtle influences "
invoked by Mr. Huxley to eke out the defi-
ciencies of protoplasmic chemistry are nothing
else than — under another name — that very
same vital force or vital principle in which it
is now so unfashionable and so unscientific
to believe.^

9. In truth, however, the fulcrum on which
Mr, Huxley's protoplasmic materialism rests
is a single inference from a chemical analogy.
But analogy, which is never identity, though
often mistaken for it, is apt to betray. The
difference which it covers may be essential,
while the likeness it reveals may be inessential
— as far as the conclusion is concerned. The
analogy to which Mr. Huxley trusts has two
references : one to chemical composition, and
one to a certain stimulus that determines it.
In both of these the analogy fails : in both it
can only seem to succeed by discounting the
elements of difference that still subsist.

It cannot be denied that protoplasm is a
chemical substance. It cannot be denied that
protoplasm is a physical substance. Both
physically and chemically, water (as a compound
of hydrogen, and oxygen) and protoplasm (as

* Dr. Elam's "Automatism and Evolution" {ut sup,\'g,
560.

Protoplasm. 127

a compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen) are clearly analogous. So far
as it is on chemical and physical structure
that the possession of distinctive properties
in any case depends, both bodies may be said
to be on a par. So far the analogy must be
allowed to hold ; so far, but no farther. " One
step farther, and we see not only that
protoplasm has, like water, a chemical and
physical structure ; but that, unlike water, it
has also an organised or organic structure.
Now this, on the part of protoplasm, is a
possession in excess ; and with relation to that
excess there can be no grounds for analogy."
When therefore Mr. Huxley says, " If the
phenomena exhibited by water are its properties,
so are those presented by protoplasm, living
or dead, its properties," the answer is, '* Living
or dead.^" organic or inorganic? That alter-
native is simply slipped in and passed ; but it
is in that alternative that the whole matter
lies. Chemically, dead protoplasm is to Mr.
Huxley quite as good as living protoplasm.
It is this dead protoplasm which he finds so
delectable in the shape of bread, lobster,
mutton. But then it is to be remembered that
it is only these — as being inorganic — that can
be placed on the same level as water; while

128 Scientific Sophisms.

living protoplasm is not only unlike water, but
it is unlike dead protoplasm. Living and dead
protoplasm are identical only as far as chemistry
is concerned (if indeed so far as that) ; it is
therefore evident, consequently, that difference
between the two cannot depend on that in
which they are identical ; ue,^ cannot depend
on the chemistry.

Life, then, is something else than the result
of chemical or physical structure, aiia it is in
another sphere than those of physics or che-
mistry that its explanation must be found. It
is thus that, lifted high enough, the light of the
analogy between water and protoplasm is seen
to go out. Water, like its constituent elements,
has only chemical and physical qualities ;
like them, it is still inorganic. But not so in
protoplasm, where, together with retention of
the chemical and physical likeness, there is the
addition of the unlikeness of life, of organization,
and of ideas. But this addition is a world in
itself: a new and higher world, the world of
a self-realizing thought, the world of an entelechy.
The relation of the organic to the inorganic —
of protoplasm dead to protoplasm alive — is
not an analogy, but an antithesis : The anti-
thesis of antitheses. In it, in fact, we are in
presence of the one impassable gulf — '*that

Protoplasm. 129

gulf which Mr, Huxley's protoplasm is as
powerless to efface as any other material ex-
pedient that has ever been suggested since the
eyes of men first looked into it — the mighty
gulf between death and life." ^

10. " Protoplasm is the clay of the potter,
which, bake it and paint it as he will, remains clay,
separated by artifice, and not by nature, from
the commonest brick or sun-dried clod." On
this it has been justly observed that " Mr. Huxley
puts emphatically his whole soul into this sen-
tence, and evidently believes it to be, if we may
use the word, a clincher^ But the answer is
easy. The assertion that all bricks, being made
of clay, are the same thing, is one that involves
its own limitation. Yes, undoubtedly, we answer,
if they are made of the same clay. The bricks
are identical if the clay is identical ; but, on
the other hand, by as much as the clay differs
will the bricks diflfer. And, similarly, all
organisms can be identified only if their com-
posing protoplasm can be identified. But when,
from indefinite generalizations, we descend to
definite particulars, this identification is found
to be impossible.

Mr. Huxley's entire theory may be summed

* Dr. Stirling : "As Regards Protoplasm," p. 41.

130 Scientific Sophisms.

up in two propositions : — First, " That all animal
and vegetable organisms are essentially alike
in power, in form, and in substance ; " Second,
" That all vital and even intellectual functions
are the properties of the molecular disposition
and changes of the material basis (protoplasm)
of .which the various animals and vegetables
consist." In both propositions the agent of
proof is this same alleged material basis of life,
or protoplasm. To establish the first, Mr. Hux-
ley endeavours to identify all organisms (animal
and vegetable) in protoplasm. To establish
the second, by means of inference from a simple
chemical analogy he assigns vitality, and even
intellect, to the molecular constituents of the
protoplasm, in connection with which they are
exhibited.

The second of these propositions has already
been examined and refuted. It has been shown ^
that life is not a property of protoplasm ; that
it IS not a product of protoplasm ; and that
vitality and protoplasm are not inseparable.
Be protoplasm what it may, vital and intel-
lectual functions are not the products of its
molecular constitution.

It is the first of these two propositions which
now remains to be examined. Is protoplasm,
' In paragraphs 5, 6, 8, and 9, pp. 120-129.

Protopldsm. 131

as alleged by Mr. Huxley, an actual life-matter,
everywhere identical in itself, and one which
consequently everywhere involves the identity
of all the various organs and organisms which
it is assumed to compose? The bricks, says
Mr. Huxley, are the same because the clay is
the same. But is the clay the same } Can it
be identified, as Mr. Huxley alleges, by a three-
fold unity of faculty, of form, of substance ?

To begin then with this simplest question,
that of substance. Are all samples of proto-
plasm identical, first, in their chemical composi-
tion, and, second, under the action of the various
re-agents ? This cannot be affirmed. And it is
against the affirmation of this that "we point
to the fact of much chemical difference obtaining
among the tissues, not only in the proporiions
of their fundamental elements, but also in the
addition (and proportion as well) of such others
as chlorine, sulphur, phosphorus, potass, soda,
lime, magnesia, iron, etc. Vast differences
vitally must be legitimately assumed for tissues
that are so different chemically."^

As to the alleged unities of form and power
in protoplasm, according to Strieker,^ "Proto-

^ Dr. Stirling : ** As Regards Protoplasm," p. 29.
' Whom Professor Huxley calls, " My valued friend Pro-
fessor Strieker." (" Yeasty^ in " Critiques and Addresses,"

132 Scientific Sophisms.

plasm varies almost infinitely in consistence,
in shape, in structure, and in function.

" In consistence, it is sometimes so fluid as to be capa-
ble of forming in drops; sometimes semi-fluid and
gelatinous ; sometimes of considerable resistance. In
shape — for to Strieker the cells are now protoplasm — we
have club-shaped protoplasm, globe-shaped protoplasm,
cup-shaped protoplasm, bottle-shaped protoplasm, spindle-
shaped protoplasm, branched, threaded, ciliated proto-
plasm, circle-headed protoplasm, flat, conical, cylindrical,
longitudinal, prismatic, polyhedral, and palisade-like
protoplasm. In structure, again, it is sometimes uniform
and sometimes reticulated into interspaces that contain
fluid.

"In function, lastly, some protoplasm is vagrant, and of
unknown use. Some again produces pepsine, and some
fat. Some at least contain pigment. Then there is
nerve-protoplasm, brain-protoplasm, bone-protoplasm,
muscle-protoplasm, and protoplasm of all the other tissues,
no one of which but produces its own kind, and is uninter-
changeable with the rest. Lastly, on this head, we have
to point to the overwhelming fact that there is the in-
finitely different protoplasm of the various infinitely dif-
ferent plants and animals, in each of which its own proto-
plasm, as in the case of the various tissues, but produces
its own kind, and is uninterchangeable with that of the
rest." 1

The evidence in refutation of Mr. Huxley's
first proposition is thus seen to be overwhelm-

p. 89.) Strieker: with whom, says Dr. Stirling, "for the
production of his * Handbuch,' there is associated every
great histological name in Germany." (Pref., p. 3.)
* "As Regards Protoplasm," pp. 30, 31.

Protoplasm. 133

ing. In view of the nature of microscopic
science ; in view of the results hitherto obtained
as regards nucleus, membrane, and entire cell ;
even in view of the supporters of protoplasm
itself; Mr. Huxley's assertion of a physical
matter of life is untenable.^ But even if that
" matter of life " were granted, the reasons in-
numerable, and even irrefragable, would still
remain to compel us — as now they do actually
compel us — to acknowledge in it, not indeed the
" identity " now claimed, but rather " an infinite
diversity " in power, in form, and in substance.
No wonder that the bricks are not the same :
with this "infinite diversity" in the clay.

II. Nor is this fundamental diversity in any
way altered or diminished by the convertibility
of which Mr. Huxley speaks. On the contrary,
that convertibility, as alleged by Mr. Huxley,

* The position here maintained — in opposition to
Mr. Huxley — is supported by an important dictum of
Professor Tyndall : — " When the contents of a cell are de-
scribed as perfectly homogeneous, as absolutely structure-
less, because the microscope fails to distinguish any
structure, then I think the microscope begins to play a
mischievous part. A little consideration will make it
plain to all of you that the microscope can have no voice
in the real question of germ structure." — Fragments oj
Science : First Edition, p. 155.

134 Scientific Sophisms.

establishes the antecedent diversity. If the
diversity were non-existent, there would be no
room for the alleged process of convertibility.
And yet, as used by him, this same convertibility
is employed to stamp protoplasm (and with it
life and intellect) into an indifferent identity.
In order that there may be " no break " between
the lowest functions and the highest — betweei>
the functions of the fungus and the functions
of man — he has "endeavoured to prove," he
tells us, that the protoplasm of the lowest
organisms is "essentially identical with, and
most readily converted into that of any animal." ^
And on this alleged reciprocal convertibility of
protoplasm he founds an inference of identity,
as well as of the further conclusion that the
functions of the highest, not less than of the
lowest animals, are but the molecular manifesta-
tions of the protoplasm which is common to all.
" Is this alleged reciprocal convertibility true,
then ? Is it true that every organism can digest
every other organism, and that thus a relation
of identity is established between that which
digests and whatever is digested?

" These questions place Mr. Huxley's general enterprise,
perhaps, in the most glaring light yet ; for it is very evident

1 "Lay Sermons," p. 138.

Protoplasm. 135

that there is an end of the argument if all foods and all
feeders are essentially identical both with themselves and
with each other. The facts of the case, however, I be-
lieve to be too well known to require a single word here
on my part. It is not long since Mr. Huxley himself
pointed out the great difference between the foods of
plants and the foods of animals ; and the reader may be
safely left to think for himself of ruminantia and car-
nivorUy of soft bills and hard bills^ of molluscs and men.
Mr. Huxley talks feelingly of the possibility of himself
feeding the lobster quite as much as of the lobster feeding
him ; but such pathos is not always applicable : it is not
likely that a sponge would be to the stomach of Mr.
Huxley any more than Mr. Huxley would be to the
stomach of a sponge.

" But a more important point is this, that the
functions themselves remain quite apart from
the alleged convertibility. We caa neither
acquire the functions of what we eat, nor impart
our functions to what eats us. We shall not
come to fly by feeding on vultures, nor they
to speak by feeding on us. No possible manure
of human brains will enable a corn-field to
reason. But if functions are inconvertible^ the
convertibility of protoplasm is idle. In this
inconvertibility, indeed, functions will be seen
to be independent of mere chemical composition.
And that is the truth : for function there is
more required than either chemistry or physics."^

^ Dr. Stirling ; " As Regards Protoplasm," p. 50.

136 Scientific Sophisms,

12. As of the bricks, then, so of the clay: it
is not identical, and it is not convertible. But
Evolution dies hard, and Mr. Huxley in the
last resort falls back upon protoplasm " variously
modified'' But where are we to begin, not to
have modified protoplasm ? Mr. Huxley begins
with the sting of the nettle, but even there the
protoplasm is already modified ; and we have
the authority of Rindfleisch for asserting that
"in every different tissue we must look for
a different initial term of the productive
series."

Besides : there are in protoplasm generic or
specific differences ; differences not merely of
degree, but of kind. Some of these are indicated
by Mr. Huxley himself, when he tells us that
plants alone are capable of assimilating inorganic
matter ; while animals assimilate organic matter
only. Others must be admitted " for the over-
whelming reason that an infinitude of various
kinds exist in it, each of which is self-productive
and uninterchangeable with the rest.*' Brain-
protoplasm is not bone-protoplasm, nor the
protoplasm of the fungus the protoplasm of
man. " If the cornea of the eye and the enamel
of the teeth are alike but modified protoplasm,
we must be pardoned for thinking more of the
adjective than of the substantive. Our wonder

Protoplasm. 137

is how, for one idea, protoplasm could become
one thing here, and, for another idea, another
so different thing there. We are more curious
about the modification than the protoplasm.
In the difference, rather than in the identity,
it is indeed that the wonder lies.

" Here are several thousand pieces of proto-
plasm ; analysis can detect no difference in
them. They are to us, let us say, as they are
to Mr. Huxley, identical in power, in form, and
in substance ; and yet on all these several thou-
sand little bits of apparently indistinguishable
matter an element of difference so pervading
and so persistent has been impressed, that of
them all, not one is interchangeable with
another ! Each seed feeds its own kind. The
protoplasm of the gnat will no more grow into
the fly than it will grow into an elephant.
Protoplasm is protoplasm ; yes, but man's
protoplasm is man's protoplasm, and the mush-
room*s the mushroom's."^ The difference is
one of kind, not of degree ; and that difference
the word " modification," though it may indeed
sometimes conceal, will never be able to
efface.

13. In closing this brief review of Mr. Huxley's
^ " As Regards Protoplasm," p. 58.

138 Scientific Sophisms.

doctrine, it will be found not unimportant to
notice some particulars which characterise Mr.
Huxley's own position in relation to it. Fore-
most among these is the nomenclature which
Mr, Huxley has chosen to employ.

The protoplasmic pellicle, "the formative
protoplasmic layer " in vegetable cells, was re-
garded by Von Mohl as a structure of special
importance, distinct from the cell-contents, and
was named by him, in 1844, "the primordial
utricle." This primordial utricle has since been
called protoplasm by Professor Huxley, although
some years previously he had restricted the term
protoplasm to the matter within the primordial
utricle^ which matter he at that time regarded
as nothing more than an " accidental anatomical
modification " of the endoplast, and of little
importance.^ "The nucleus, and with it the
protoplasm, Mr. Huxley thought, exerted no
peculiar office^ and possessed no metabolic power.
But Mr. Huxley has changed his views without
one word of explanation concerning the facts
which led him to modify them, or even an ac-
knowledgment that he had changed them. Mr.
Huxley now considers ' protoplasm ' of the first
importance. . . . His 'endoplast ' and *peri-

^ "The Cell Theory:" Medical Chirurgical Review^
October, 1853.

Protoplasm. 139

plastic substance' of 1853 together constitute
his * protoplasm ' of 1869/' ^

14. "In order to convince people that the
actions of living beings are not due to any
mysterious vitality or vital force or power, but
are in fact physical and chemical in their nature,
Professor Huxley gives to matter which is alive^
to matter which is dead, and to matter which is
completely cJtanged by the process of roasting or
boiling, the very same name. 'Mutton con-
tained protoplasm of the same nature as was
found in every living thing/ ' As he spoke, he
was wasting his stock of protoplasm, but he
had the power of making it up again by draw-
ing upon the protoplasm of some other animal —
say a sheep. (Laughter.)* The matter of sheep
and mutton and man and lobster and egg is
the same, and, according to Huxley, one may
be transubstantiated into the other. But how }
By ' subtle influences,' and * under sundry cir-
cumstances,' answers this authority. And all
these things alive, or dead, or dead and roasted,
he tells us are made of protoplasm, and he
affirms this protoplasm is the physical basis of

^ " Protoplasm ; or Matter and Life." By Lionel S.
Beale, M.B., F.R.S. Third Edition. London : Churchill,
1874, pp. 90, 91.

140 Scientific Sophisms.

life, or the basis of physical life} But is it not
hard that the discoverer of ^subtle influences^
should laugh at the fiction of ' vitality ' ! By
calling things which differ from one another in
many qualities by the same name, Huxley seems
to think he can annihilate distinctions, enforce
identity, and sweep away the difficulties which
have impeded the progress of previous philo-
sophers in their search after unity. Plants and
worms and men are all protoplasm, and proto-
plasm is albuminous matter, and albuminous
matter consists of four elements, and these
four elements possess certain properties, by
which properties all differences between plants
and worms and men are to be accounted for.
Although Huxley would probably admit that a
worm was not a man, he would tell us that by
* subtle influences ' and ' under sundry circum-
stances,' the one thing might be easily con-
verted into the other, and not by such non-
sensical fictions as ' vitality,' which can neither
be weighed, measured,, nor conceived. But, in

* [Note by Dr. Beale :] The heading of his lecture as
published in The Scotsman for November 9, 1868, is " The
Bases of Physical Life," while his communication in The
Fortnightly y February i, 1869, referred to by him as this
same lecture, is entitled " The Physical Basis of Life."
The iron basis of the candle, and the basis of the iron
candle, are expressions evidently interchangeable.

Protoplasm. 141

science, it is not fair to indulge in word-tricks
and equivocal illustrations, nor is it justifiable
to make use of misleading similes." ^

15. "I think Professor Huxley, is the first
observer who has spoken of the cell in its
entirety as a mass of protoplasm, and the only
one who has ever asserted that any tissue in
nature is composed throughout of matter which
can properly be regarded as one in kind. This
view is quite irreconcilable with many facts,
some of which have been alluded to by Mr.
Huxley himself. I doubt if in the whole range
of modern science it would be possible to find
an assertion more at variance with facts familiar
to physiologists than the statement that * beast
and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusc, worm, and
polype,' are composed of * masses of protoplasm
with a nucleus,' unless it be that still more
extravagant assertion that what is ordinarily
termed a cell or elementary part is a mass of
protoplasm ; for can anything be more unlike the
semi-fluid, active, moving matter of amoeba pro-
toplasm, than the hard, dry, passive, external
part of a cuticular cell or of an elementary
part of bone Y' 2

^ Dr. Beale's " Protoplasm,*' ut sup., pp. 95, 96.
2 Ibid., pp. 97, 98.

142 Scientific Sophisms.

" Huxley makes no difference between dead and living
and roasted matter, and he confuses together the living
thing, the stuff upon which it feeds, and the things formed
by it, or which result from its death. A muscle is pro-
toplasm ; nerve is protoplasm ; a limb is protoplasm ;
the whole body is protoplasm, and of course bone, hair,
shell, etc., are as much *the physical basis of life' as
albuminous matter and roast mutton. But surely it would
be less incorrect to speak of such ' protoplasms ' as the
physical basis of death or the physical basis of roast than
to call dead and roasted matter the physical basis of lift.
. . . Huxley says lobster-protoplasm may be converted
into human protoplasm, and the latter again turned into
living lobster. But the statement is incorrect, because
in the process of assimilation what was once * protoplasm '
is entirely disintegrated, and is not converted into the
new tissue in the form of protoplasm at all ; and I must
remark that sheep cannot be transubstantiated into man,
even by * subtle influences,' nor can dead protoplasm be
converted into living protoplasm, or a dead sheep into a
living man. And what is gained by calling the matter
of dead roast mutton and that of a living growing sheep
by the same name ? If the last is the physical basis of
Hfe^ one does not see how the first can be so too, unless
roast mutton and living sheep are identical." ^

Plain-speaking, this of Dr. Beale's ; but its
irresistible force is found in the well-earned
celebrity of its author — "the foremost micro-
scopist of the English-speaking world." ^

* Dr. Beale's " Protoplasm," ut sup,^ pp. 100, loi.

2 " Beale's protoplasmic theory now takes the place of
the cell theory. General opinion is now in accord, as
respects the facts, with Dr. Beale's statements on the

Protoplasm. 1 43

16. " It IS significant that Huxley himself,
some sixteen years ago, drew a distinction be-
tween living and non-living matter, which he
now, without any explanation, utterly ignores.
He remarked that the stone, the gas, the crystal,
had an inertia^ and tended to remain as they
were unless some external influence affected
them ; but that living things were characterised
by the very opposite tendencies. He referred
also to 'the faculty of pursuing their own
course * and the 'inherent law of change in living
beings.' In 1853, the same authority actually
found fault with those who attempted to reduce
life to 'mere attractions and repulsions,' and
'considered physiology simply as a complex
branch of mere physics.' He also remarked
that ' vitality is a property inherent in certain
kinds of matter.* " ^ Now, however, as we have
seen, there is but one kind of matter, " variously
modified ; " and " vitality " has no better status
than " aquosity ! "

17. Nor is it less "significant" to note Mr.
Huxley's various, though incidental admissions,
and to contrast them with the dogmatism of his

nucleus in i860." (Dr. John Drysdale : "Protoplasmic
Theory of Life.*' London, 1874.)
^ Dr. Beale : ut sup,^ p. loi.

144 Scientific Sophisms.

mere assertions. We look for certainty and find
only probability : e,g,y — " It is more than probable
that when the vegetable world is thoroughly
explored we shall find all plants in possession
of the same powers." The premises then have
still to be collected ; and yet the conclusion has
been confidently proclaimed. Compare this
" more than probable " vaticination concerning
vegetables with the positive assertion "that
the powers of ALL the different forms of living
things were substantially one^ that their forms
were substantially one^ and, finally, that their
composition was also substantially ^«^." ^ Again,
he says, " So far as the conditions of the mani-
festations of the phenomena of contractility have
yet been studied." Now this "so far" is not
" yet " by any means " very far." But what is
meant by "the manifestations of the phe-
nomena".^ The manifestations are the phe-
nomena! and they completely refute Mr.
Huxley's latest theory. Again, we hear that
it is "the rule rather than the exception," or
that " weighty authorities have suggested'' that
such and such things " probably occur,"' or, while
contemplating the nettle-sting, that such ^'pos-
sible complexity " in other cases " dawns upon
one." On other occasions he admits that
^ Scotsman^ November 9, 1868.

Protoplasm. 145

" perhaps it would not yet be safe to say that
all forms," etc. Nay, not only does he directly
say that '*it is by no means his intention to
suggest that there is no difference between the
lowest plant and the highest, or between plants
and animals," but he directly proves what he
says, for he demonstrates in plants and animals
an essential difference of power. Plants can
assimilate inorganic matters, animals can
notf etc.

18. " Mr. Huxley's ideas as to the composition
of protoplasm have already been noticed, and it
has been shown that they are clearly opposed
to the known facts of science. Here a simple
alternative presents itself ; either Mr. Huxley is

familiar with the .elementary facts of organic
chemistry, in which case he would be aware of
the impossibility gf such a composition ; or he
is not so, on which supposition it was at least
indiscreet to found an important practical
doctrine like that of human automatism on a
purely fknciful chemical theory. Which alter-
native is to be adopted may perhaps receive
some Illustration from a parallel passage in
the essay *On the Formation of Coal,'^

^ " Critiques and Addresses," pp. 109, no.

146 Scientific Sophisms.

where, referring to the burning of coal, it is
said : —

" ' Heat comes out of it, light comes out of it, and if
we could gather together all that goes up the chimney,
and all that remains in the grate of a thoroughly-burnt
coal-fire, we should find ourselves in possession of a
quantity of carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and mineral
matters, exactly equal in weight to the coal ! '

" It requires but the most elementary ac-
quaintance with the subject to recognise that
the 'quantity' of these products would be at
least twice, probably thrice, as great as the
original weight of the coal. A due considera-
tion and comparison of these facts will enable
the reader to estimate at its true value the
science from which such stupendous consequences
are so confidently deduced."^

19. " How such doctrines came to be received
can only be accounted for in Professor Huxley*s
own words when treating on some other an-
tagonistic 'teaching,' which he says was only
* tolerable on account of the ignorance of those
by whom it was accepted.* Referring to some
anatomical question, he says further that *it
would, in fact, be unworthy of serious refutation,

^ Dr. Elam : "Automatism and Evolution;" Contempo-
rary Review, October, 1876, pp. 729, 730.

Protoplasm. 147

except for the general and natural belief that
deliberate and reiterated assertions must have
some foundation,' ^ It is by this time tolerably
clear that Professor Huxley's * Chemistry of
Life' has no foundation except that of 'deli-
berate and reiterated assertion/ " ^

But " if such be the case with the chemistry,
what is to be said for the argument founded
upon it, or attached to it — if, indeed, argument
it can be called ? " It has now been tried,
and found wanting, in every particular. It is
condemned by its own admissions. It is con-
demned by the magnitude of its assumptions.
It is condemned by its antagonism to notorious
facts, and its violation of established principles.
And the sentence which has followed condem-
nation is not less just than severe : —

"I cannot more appropriately conclude this
notice of the doctrine of * The Physical Basis of
Life,' than with an extract from the author's
own anthology of criticism, where,^ speaking of
the theory of creation, he says : —

That such verbal hocus-pocus should be received as

(( (

* " Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," p. 85.

^ Dr. Elam: Contemporary Review^ September, 1876,

p. 555.
^ Professor Huxley's " Lay Sermons," p. 285.

148 Scientific Sophisms.

science will one day be regarded as evidence of the low
state of intelligence in the nineteenth century, just as we
amuse ourselves with the phraseology about nature's
abhorrence of a vacuun^ wherewith Torricelli's compatriots
were satisfied to explain the rise of water in a pump.' " '

* Dr. Elam : Contemporary Review, October, 1876 : p.
732.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE THREE BEGINNINGS.

149

" God is law, say the wise ; O Soul, and let us rejoice,
For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.
Speak to Him thou for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit

can meet —
Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands

and feet.** — Tennyson,

" Science is only the one half : Faith is the other."—
Novalis,

150

CHAPTER VIII.

THE THREE BEGINNINGS.

" Give me matter," said Kant, " and I will ex-
plain the formation of a world ; but give me
matter only, and I cannot explain the formation
of a caterpillar." This dictum is widely different
from that of Professor Tyndall, who discerns in
matter alone "the promise and potency of all
terrestrial life." To the same effect is his
eulogium on the Italian philosopher, Giordano
Bruno, of whom he tells us ^ that " he came to
the conclusion that Nature in her productions
does not imitate the technic of man. Her pro-
cess IS one of unravelling and unfolding. The
infinity of forms under which matter appears
were not imposed upon it by an external
artificer ; by its own intrinsic force and virtue
it brings these forms forth. Matter is not the
mere naked, empty capacity which philosophers
have pictured her to be, but the universal

1 " Belfast Address," pp. 19, 20.

X51

152 Scientific Sophisms.

mother who brings forth all things as the fruit
of her own womb."

In this opinion, Bruno and his eulogist are
at one. In his controversy with Mr. Martineau,
a year after the delivery of the Belfast Ad-
dress, Dr. Tyndall credits " pure matter with
the astonishing building power displayed in
crystals and trees." ^ He " figures " to himself
the embryological growth of the babe, and its
" appearance in due time, a living miracle, with
all its organs and all their implications." He
dilates, justly and forcibly, on the wonders of
eye and ear: the eye "with its lens, and its
humours, and its miraculous retina behind;"
the ear " with its tympanum, cochlea, and Corti's
organ — an instrument of three thousand strings,
built adjacent to the brain, and employed by
it to sift, separate, and interpret, antecedent to
all consciousness, the sonorous tremors of the ex-
ternal world. All this has been accomplished,"
he tells us, "not only without man*s con-
trivance, but without his knowledge, the secret
of his own organization having been withheld
from him since his birth in the immeasurable
past, until the other day." And then he adds,
"Matter I define as that mysteripus thing by

1 «

Materialism and its Opponents," p. 594.

The Three Beginnings. 153

which all this is accomplished."^ No wonder
then that Bruno should be lauded for his
" closer " approximation " to our present line of
thought." 2

But this expression — "our present line of
thought " — is suggestive, and throws us back on
a previous passage in the Address, in which we
are told that " to construct the universe in idea
it was necessary to have some notion of its
constituent parts — of what Lucretius subse-
quently called the * First Beginnings.* " *

The "First Beginnings!" What has "our
present line of thought " to say on these } We
shall do well to question it.

And, to begin at the beginning, we shall do
well to note — not merely the order, but — the fact
here admitted. There was — no matter when —
an actual Beginning : a first start ; distinct,
definite. Antecedently, there was a prior time,
when this first start had not been made. The
process of Evolution, a " process of unravelling
and unfolding," is a process which then had not
begun. It is therefore not eternal. It had a
beginning. But who began it ?

^ " Materialism and its Opponents," p. 598.
' " Belfast Address," p. 19.
3 Ibid,^ p. 2.

154 Scientific Sophisms,

You postulate "Matter." But in so doing
you are hypothecating a substance which before
the " First Beginning " had not begun to be.
How did it originate } Unable to answer that
question, you make another assumption. You
postulate "eternity" for that "matter" of whose
origin you can give no account. But this ac-
cumulation of postulates will not help you.
What is this matter which — impelled by the
exigencies of Agnostic Evolution — ^you assume
to have been self-originated } Make its essence
what you will — extension, with Descartes; or
palpableness, with Fechner — Matter is always,
and is manifestly, the local lodgment, the objec-
tive manifestation, of Power. "The withered
leaf is not dead and lost, there are Forces in it
and around it, though working in inverse order ;
else how could it rotV'^ Matter, Force, Motion,
are not unknown to Science ; but of matter self-
originated and self-sustained, of matter self-
existent and therefore eternal ; of self-originated
force, or self-originated motion ; of all these
throughout the realm of the inorganic world,
Science knows nothing.

When therefore we have granted "the eternity
of matter," the theory of Evolution is as far as

^ Carlyle : " Sartor Resartus," book i. chap. xi. p. 43.

The Three Beginnings, 155

ever from being able to make a "beginning."
That theory requires not merely matter, but
matter in motion. Not merely matter in mass,
but matter in its constituent atoms. Matter so
minutely subdivided as to be immeasurably
beyond the sphere of visibility ; and yet matter
not within the sphere of infinite divisibi-
lity. " The atoms " are " the first beginnings." ^
But speculation is at fault as to the mode in
which, or the power by which, they "first began."
In his panegyric on Lucretius, Professor Tyndall
draws special attention to his " strong scientific
imagination ; " ^ and tells us that " his vaguely
grand conception of the atoms falling eternally
through space suggested the nebular hypothesis
to Kant, its first propounded" ^ The "eternity"
of these falling atoms, however, must not be
confounded with the antecedent " eternity " of
their origination. Like the " eternity " of the
rhetorical preacher,* it has its own statute of
limitations. . It came to an end. While it
lasted there might have been seen, " far beyond
the limits of our visible world" (by aid of a

1 " Belfast Address,'' p. 8.

2 Ibid.^ p. 9.

3 Ibid,^ p. 10.

* Eternity : " An* infinite candle ; lighted — at both
ends^\f

156 Scientific Sophisms.

"strong scientific imagination"), "atoms in-
numerable," "falling silently through im-
measurable intervals of time and space." ^

" Falling eternally through space : " " falling
silently through immeasurable intervals : " but
this eternal silence was broken by "great
shocks of sound," "the mechanical shock of
the atoms ; " ^ and this eternal falling came to
an end when " the interaction of the atoms " ^
came to a beginning. How came that be-
ginning.? Nothing more simple. At first,
the atoms, silently falling, fell in parallel
lines. After that they began to deflect from
the perpendicular. Not all of them ; nor all
in the same direction : but only so many,
and in so many directions as were necessary
to produce " the mechanical shock," and " the
interaction." But falling is motion, and matter
is inert, and atoms in motion are atoms in
which inertness has been overcome by a force
external to themselves, and falling atoms are
atoms gravitating towards a centre. What
centre ? and how originated ? Why should
atoms in motion have moved originally all
in one direction } or why should they have
ceased to do so } What, and whence, is that

1 " Belfast Address," p. 10. « Ibid,^ p. 8.

The Three Beginnings. 157

Force which first moved them, — which moved
them in parallel lines, — which deflected them
from the perpendicular, — as assumed by the
hypothesis ?

"It is certain," according to "the doctrine
of Evolution," "that the existing world lay,
potentially, in the cosmic vapour." But where
it lay before the cosmic vapour existed, de-
ponent saith not. "The fundamental pro-
position of Evolution " is, as we have seen,
" that the whole world, living and not living, is
the result of the mutual interaction, according
to definite laws, of the forces possessed by the
molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of
the universe was composed." ^ Fundamental,
however, as Professor Huxley declares it to be,
it is very far indeed from " The First Begin-
ning"

This " nebulosity was composed " of certain
" molecules." But nebulosity is a state or con-
dition ; not a substance. Like the rigidity of
an iron bar, or the malleability of gold-leaf,
or the ductility of copper wire, "nebulosity"
is a word not of matter, but of mode. It
denotes a property, or it specifies a condition ;
but it does not distinguish, still less does it

^ Professor Huxley : " Critiques and Addresses," p. 305.

158 Scientific Sophisms.

define, a substance. It is characteristic of
unintelligible hypotheses, not less than of
"cosmic gas." In this instance, however, let
it pass. We will not say that it was " caused,"
— that word might lead us back in the search
for a vera causa to a "first beginning," —
but only that it was "composed." We will
not even inquire who "composed" it. And
yet, if it were permitted us to inquire at all,
we might perhaps be excused for asking,
How do you know that this nebulosity was
" primitive ".^ or that its constituent " molecules "
were "possessed" of forces? or that these
forces were controlled by " definite laws " .^ or
that the relation between them was that of
" mutual interaction " } or " that the whole
world, living and not living," — the molecules
themselves included, — " is the result " solely
and exclusively of the " mutual interaction "
which you have imagined }

What a tissue of conjectures is here! And
yet all this is assumed as " certain," and is
postulated as " the fundamental proposition of
Evolution."

But now, suppose it certain : what then }
It leaves us as far as ever from a knowledge
of "the first beginnings." It tells us of
" forces " controlled by " definite laws." But if

The Three Beginnings, 159

it tells us truly, then the law is the controlling
Power, and has a priority over the powers
controlled. Then " the forces possessed by the
molecules" were at best subordinate and se-
condary: the "definite laws" alone were
primary and supreme. But laws never make
themselves. Who made these ? and who made
them thus distinctly " definite " }

But even their definiteness is not greater
than their complexity. And this complexity
— immeasurably beyond our power of explora-
tion — is everywhere adjusted to the attainment
of a common end. Who originated a com-
plexity so intricate, yet so illimitable ? Who
established this unvarying adjustment of it — in
the very "first beginning"? For we are now
asked to imagine space filled with a frictionless
fluid ; to suppose that some portions of this
fluid did somewhere, somehow, by some means,
at some time or other, become " rotational ; "
and that having by rotation gained rigidity,
they can now, by the latest triumphs of hydro-
dynamics, be "proved" to be indivisible and
indestructible. Let it be granted. Granted
that light, heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, are
molecular movements mutually transmutable ;
that arrested molar movement displays itself
as molecular movement ; that the pressure of

i6o Scientific Sophisms.

a gas IS due to the varying motion of its
molecules impinging on the walls of the vessel
that contains it; that the rigidity, or space-
occupying power of matter, is due to the
formation of vortices in a frictionless ether, and
that each vortex-atom is thenceforth inde-
structible ; when the reality of the conceptions
thus assumed has been granted, then by exactly
so much has the absolute necessity been in-
creased of assigning — at "the first beginning"
— a First Cause, equal not only to the origina-
tion of Matter and of Force, but equal to the
origination of matter thus constituted, and of
force thus adjusted.

Evolution is thus seen to be the measure
of Involution. Whatever has been evolved
in the Effect was previously involved in the
Cause. To deny this is to affirm that the effect
may transcend the cause. If therefore — though
in utter contempt of scientific verity — we were
to resolve all chemical forces into forces me-
chanical, all life into chemistry, and the infinite
diversity of living beings into mere variety in
the play of molecular forces, ultimately resolving
itself into a motion or motions of the universal
ether, we should simply have increased by
so much our previous estimate of the Power
which — at the "first beginning" — was able

The Three Beginnings. i6i

thus "potentially" to endow "the cosmic
vapour."

Matter, Force, Order, Law, Diversity in
Unity, Concord in Complexity: they are all
known to us, but not one of them is known
as self-originated. Distinct in character, defi-
nite in operation, invariable in result : who made
them so t You trace " the whole world, living
and not living," to certain " properties " of Mat-
ter, acted upon by certain capacities of Force,
operating in an invariable Order, under the reign
of Law. You do well. Pursue your induction
to " The First Beginnings." Whence came those
" properties " of matter } those capacities of
force } Order could not regulate them before
Matter received them. Could Matter create
them } Through all the " immeasurable inter-
vals of time and space," Matter has never
created one single atom. Causa causarum:
what was that } Whatever it was, you will not
be able to ignore it, except by refusing to go
back to " The First Beginning."

That " first " beginning was followed by a
second. Immovably based on the deep founda-
tions of the inorganic world, there rises every-
where, elaborate and multifarious, the myste-
rious superstructure of organization and Life.

1 62 Scientific Sophisms.

No conclusion of modern science is more
widely received or more confidently maintained
than that which teaches that in the early history
of our planet life was unknown. Not only was
it not actual : it was not possible. Life *-hen
was not. But now life is. Life, then, had a
beginning. What was that beginning t And
whence }

" If," says Professor Huxley,^ " the hypo-
thesis of Evolution be true, living matter must
have arisen from not-living matter, for, by the
hypothesis, the condition of the globe was at one
time such that living matter could not have
existed on it, life being entirely incompatible
with the gaseous state." And he adds that,
even if we adopt Sir William Thomson's theory,
that life on this planet may have been derived
from life on some other, the difficulty of
accounting for its origination is as great as
ever. For the nebular theory, which is a part
of the hypothesis of Evolution, asserts that all
the worlds were once in " the gaseous state."

"But," he continues, "living matter once
originated, there is no necessity for another
origination, since the hypothesis postulates the
unlimited, though perhaps not indefinite,
modifiability of such matter." Waiving, for
* Encydopadia Britannica^ Article "Biology."

The Three Beginnings. 103

the present, the "unlimited modifiability "
thus postulated, it is important to observe
the profound significance of the admission here
made. " Living matter once originated : " yes,
but how ? To that crucial question, the answer,
on the same high authority, is given in these
words : " Of the causes which have led to the
origination of living matter, it may be said that
we know absolutely nothing." "The present
state of knowledge furnishes us with no link
between the living and the not-living."^ But
however inscrutable the mode, there is no ques-
tion — nor any room for question — as to the fact.
" Living matter " was " once originated^ Life
had a Beginning.

Impenetrable, however, as is the veil which
hides from our observation the origin of Life,
still more inscrutable is the mystery which
shrouds the first emergence of the self-conscious
Mind.

Mr. John Stuart Mill admits the existence of
the mind in the form of a " thread of conscious-
ness," " aware of itself as past and future," and
possessing a conviction of the simultaneous
existence of other "threads of consciousness"
and of numerous permanent possibilities of
* Encyclopcedia Britannica^ Article " Biology."

164 Scientific Sophisms.

sensation.^ And Professor Huxley asks, "Is
our knowledge of anything we know or fee)
more or less than a knowledge of states of
consciousness ? " " And," he adds, " our whole
life IS made up of such states." ^ And again,
in the same connection, he tells us of that
" highest degree of certainty which is given by
immediate consciousness." •

But what then is this consciousness } and
whence? Professor Huxley's language on the
subject is particularly confident, although at
present it is merely prophetic. " I hold," he
says, "with the materialist, that the human body,
like all living bodies, is a machine, all the opera-
tions of which will sooner or later be ex-
plained upon physical principles." And again :
" I believe that we shall arrive at a mechanical
equivalent of consciousness, just as we have
arrived at a mechanical equivalent of heat."^
But the vaticinatory character of these opinions
is their least remarkable feature. Professor
Huxley "holds" that all living things are
machines, and "believes" that "thought is as
much a function of matter as motion is ; "
but, as Dr. Beale observes, "of evidence in

^ Mill upon Hamilton, p. 212.

2 " Lay Sermons : " Descartes, p. 359.

* Macmillaris Magaziney voL xxii. p. 78.

The Three Beginnings. 165

support of these beliefs there is none that will
bear investigation, none that would convince
any reasonable being." " Such opinions and
beliefs on the mechanics of life and thought
are certainly very striking, but it is remarkable
that no one who entertains them has considered
it necessary to adduce facts or arguments in
their support The mechanical theory of life
and consciousness rests upon authority whose
utterances are dogmatic and not dependent upon
reason, fact, observation, and experiment." ^

Widely different is the language of Mr.
Herbert Spencer, and of Professor Tyndall,
in which we are assured that "our states of
consciousness are mere symbols of an outside
entity which produces them and determines the
order of their succession, but the real nature of
which we can never know." ^ It must not be
concealed however that, after all. Professor
Tyndall does not differ from Professor Huxley
more widely than Professor Huxley differs from
himself. It is not always that he indulges in
prophetic imaginings of " a mechanical equiva-
lent of consciousness." When, as above quoted,
he tells us of what he "holds" "with the
materialist," we have only to turn to his " Phy-

1 " Protoplasm ; or Matter and Life." 1874. P. 119.

2 " Belfast Address," p. 57.

1 66 Scientific Sophisms.

siology " to find materials for the utter refuta-
tion of materialism.

" We class," he says, " sensations along with
emotions^ and volitions y and thoughts ^ under the
common head of states of consciousness. But
what consciousness is, we know not ; and how
it is that anything so remarkable as a state
of consciousness comes about as the result of
irritating nervous tissue is just as unaccount-
able as the appearance of the Djin when Alad-
din rubbed his lamp in the story." ^

*' Some," says Dr. Beale, " have taught that
mind transcends life, and life transcends che-
mistry, just as chemical affinity transcends me-
chanics. But no one has proved, and no one
can prove, that mind and life are in any way
related to chemistry and mechanics." ^ Even it
the step from mechanics to chemistry had been
admitted as ascertained and proved, it would
still remain true that the step from chemistry
to life is a mere unsupported assumption; an
assumption " without the slightest reason."

"How any material impressions should awake
thought ; but, still more, how, in independence of
all impressions, thought should be all the while
there, alive and active, a world by itself — that

1 P. 193.

' " Protoplasm," p. 299.

The Three Beginnings, 167

is the mystery." And that mystery no scalpel,
no microscope, will ever explain. " Mechanical
balances the most delicate, chemical tests the
most sensitive, are all powerless there. And
why } Simply because consciousness and they
are incommensurable : of another nature, of
another world from the first, sundered from
each other by the whole diameter of being."

But whence came this "other world," this
new " incommensurable " 1 and whence the
"great gulf," the impassable chasm, which
marks the new beginning } Mens agitat
molem ; but that implies for Mens a special
nature, a special relation, and a special origin.
What was that origin } and whence }

Whatever its source, whatever its nature,
the one broad patent fact remains alike in-
dubitable and incontestable : — there was a de-
finite epoch in which the human mind first
came into being. Thought began to be. In-
telligence, self-conscious, emerged — though not
from the world of matter — to be enthroned in
the World of Mind. Whence came it } Who
will tell us.? For to Agnostic Evolution a
phenomenon so portentous is absolutely fatal.
Scientific Materialism can give no account of
it. It is perfectly "UNACCOUNTABLE."

And yet it is true !

CHAPTER IX.
THE THREE BARRIERS.

169

" The whole world is the flux of matter over the wires
of Tkovght."— Emerson.

" Every part of the universe is an argument against
atheism as a theory thereof." — Theodore Parker,

" Abstract secondary causation *does not exist, and a
physical search after essential causes is vain. * Causa-
tion is the Will, Creation the Act^ of GodJ " — Grovels
** Correlation of Physical Forces P

" Law rules throughout existence ; a law which is not
intelligent but intelligence ... it disdains words
and passes understanding ; it dissolves persons ; it
vivifies nature ; yet solicits the pure in heart to draw on
all its omnipotence."— -ffw^rj^w.

X70

CHAPTER IX.

THE THREE BARRIERS,

" So long as you have that fire of the heart
within you, and know the reality of it," says
Mr. Ruskin, "you need be under no alarm as
to the possibility of its chemical or mechanical
analysis. The philosophers are very humorous
in .their ecstasy of hope about it ; but the real
interest of their discoveries in this direction is
very small to human-kind."^ And the same
may be said of the discoveries themselves.
Their actual amount, not less than their real
interest, is " very small." So small indeed, that
" their ecstasy about it " — though merely an
" ecstasy of hope " — is a " very humorous " spec-
tacle. He who doubts this has not read Mr.
Darwin.

" It requires a long succession of ages to
adapt an organism to some new and peculiar
form of life, as, for instance, to fly through the

I «

The Queen of the Air." London, 1869, p. 70.

171

172 Scientific Sophisms.

air." ^ " We do not see the transitional grade
through which the wings of birds have passed ;
but what special difficulty is there in believing
that it might profit the modified descendants of
the penguin, first to become enabled to flap
along the surface of the sea, like the logger-
headed duck, and ultimately to rise from its
surface and glide through the air ? " ^ " The
tail of the giraffe looks like an artificially con-
structed fly-flapper; and it seems at first in-
credible that this should have been adapted for
its present purpose by successive slight modifi-
cations, each better and better, for so trifling
an object as driving away flies ; yet we should
pause before being too positive even in this
case, for ... a well-developed tail having
been formed in an aquatic animal, it might sub-
sequently come to be worked in for all sorts of
purposes — as a fly-flapper, an organ of prehen-
sion, or as aid in turning, as with the dog." ^

In this way, the tail of a horse may have
been derived from that of a shark, the tail of a
cow from the skate, and the giraffe owe his fly-
flapper to a remote progenitor, the sturgeon.
Or, if there be any who think that to affirm this

» " Origin of Species,'* First Edition, p. 328.

2 Ibid,^ p. 329.

3 Ibid^ p. 215.

The Three Barriers. 173

is to affirm too much, Mr. Darwin may still ask
(as above) " What special difficulty there is in
believing'' it? Especially "since it certainly is
not true that new organs appear suddenly in
any class." ^

The counterpart of this strange story is still
more worthy of a place in the record of the
"Thousand and One Nights." For not only
have so many terrestrial creatures been derived
from an " aquatic origin"^ by that marvellous
metaphor called Natural Selection, but, on the
other hand, there are not wanting some land-
animals that, renouncing their original nature,
have become aquatic. Surprising as it may be
to learn that a giraffe was once a fish, it is not
less surprising to be told that a whale was once
a bear. And yet, " In North America, the black
bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours
with widely-open mouth, thus catching, like a
whale, insects in the water. / see no difficulty
in a race of bears being rendered by Natural
Selection more and more aquatic in their struc-
ture and habits, with larger and larger mouths,
till a creature was produced as monstrous as a
whale." * With this difference, however : that,

* " Origin of Species," First Edition, p. 214.

2 Ibid,^ p. 215.

^ In the third and subsequent editions, the latter part

174 Scientific Sophisms.

when the ursine whale began his career he had
his tail to make — an operation exactly the
reverse of that in the previous story. The land
animals, having been fishes, derived their tails
from the waters ; but in this latter case a land
animal goes into the water to live like a fish and
procure a tail. Humorous? Not at all. Per-
fectly serious. Consider the authority of Mr.
Huxley, and remember that "the hypothesis
postulates the unlimited modifiability of matter."
Nor is it matter alone which, in the hands of
" Natural Selection " presents the marvellous
transformations due to unlimited modifiability.
"Under changed conditions of life," says Mr.
Darwin, " it is at least possible that slight modi-
fications of instinct might be profitable to a
species; and if it can be shown that instincts
do vary ever so little, then I can see no difficulty
in Natural Selection preserving and continually
accumulating variations of instinct to any extent
that was profitable. It is thus, / believe^ that all
the most complex and wonderful instincts have
originated." ^

of this passage is omitted, for no apparent reason. No
hint is given that Mr. Darwin now sees any difficulty
where he saw none before, and the statement as now left
still contains the suggested transformation ; a suggestion
strengthened by the connection in which it is found.
^ " Origin of Species," p. 229.

The Three Barriers. 175

This is too much for M. Flourens. " Surely,"
says that accomplished naturalist, *'we cannot
take this as meant to be serious. Natural Se-
lection choosing an instinct !

* ... La po^sie a ses licences, mais
Celle-ci passe un peu les homes que j'y mets.' " '

Mr. Darwin, however, is serious enough, and
maintains in all good faith, that peculiar in-
stincts are in all cases the result not of original
endowment, but of subsequent acquisition ; " by
the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous
slight, yet profitable variations." ^ Individual
life, as well as the life of the community, whether
in ants or bees, was once a totally different thing
from what we now behold ; then beavers did not
build, and neither the stork nor the swallow
knew their appointed seasons.

In treating of the ants and the honey-bee,
Mr. Darwin attempts to account for that striking
peculiarity — the groundwork of much of their
polity — the existence of neuters.

" Thus, / believe^^ he says, " it has been with social
insects ; a slight modification of structure or instinct,

* "Examen du Livre de M. Darwin sur L'Origine
des Esp^ces." Par P. Flourens. (Paris, 1864.) P. 55.
Vide infrd: Appendix, Note C.

2 " Origin of Species," p. 230.

176 Scientific Sophisms.

correlated with the sterile condition of certain members
of the community, has been advantageous to the com-
munity ; consequently the fertile males and females of
the same community flourished, and transmitted to their
fertile offspring a tendency to produce sterile members,
having the same modification. And I believe this process
has been repeated, until that prodigious amount of dif-
ference between the fertile and sterile females of the same
species has been produced, which we see in many social
insects." *

But the very existence of " the community "
(in the case of the honey-bees, for example)
depends upon the specific arrangements of the
present polity and constitution. Alter these
arrangements, and the polity is at an end ; " the
community " exists no longer. If, therefore, at
any time, all the females were fertile, as this
explanation implies that they once were, then
" the community " did not exist ; and its opera-
tions, however "slight," in "modification of
structure, or instinct,** at a time when it was
non-existent, are unimaginable, except in
Utopia.

If only they were imaginable, the " scientific
imagination" would not lack exercise. We
should in that case have to imagine that when
the fertile females were transforming — not them-
selves but — ^their posterity into sterile members

* " Origin of Species," p. 260.

The Three Barriers. 177

for the benefit of society, there was one remark-
able exception. One female there was who, by
a long preconcerted scheme, though by a most
occult and undiscoverable process, was all the
while prodigiously increasing her fertility in
order to become the sole Mother and Queen of
the whole hive I We should have to imagine
fertile animals agreeing to produce, and actually
producing, sterile offspring ! ** The fertile males
and females flourished ; and transmitted to
their fertile offspring a tendency to produce
sterile members ! " Fertile parents transmit,
through fertile progeny, a tendency to produce
sterility incapable of further production ! " Hu-
morous " ? Not at all. The theory requires it,
and therefore, quite seriously, Mr. Darwin " be-
lieves it."

By one of his earliest and acutest critics it
was justly observed, that " If we except a pass-
ing cavil at the imperfect knowledge of optics
displayed in the mechanism of the eye, Mr.
Darwin can scarcely be said to have touched
the evidence for design deduced from the feli-
cities of fabric and deep-lying adjustments, so
profusely exemplified throughout the animal
kingdom. He tells us indeed how the pigeon's
feather may be varied, but not how the pigeon
came to be feather-clad at all. He leaves us

178 Scientific Sophisms.

quite in the dark also as to the mode in which
natural selection sets to work in the multiplying
of air-sacs, or in the boring of bones, to increase
the facilities for flotation and flight. But he
devotes a large portion of a chapter on Instinct,
otherwise extremely graceful and interesting,
to a hypothetical exposition of the processes
by which the common hive-bee, Apis mellificaj
might have distanced her less skilful kindred
Melipona and Bombus ; and how the wonderful
phenomena of sexual suppression and vicarious
labour might have arisen among the social in-
stincts of the bee and ant tribes generally. No
one, since Touchstone's time, has set such store
on the virtues, or so taxed the capacities, of an
If. A certain abstract theorem conceded, if
Bombus or Melipona could be brought to put
that theorem in practice, one huge stumbling-
block would be removed from Mr. Darwin's
speculative path. But this is the hitch. It is
as much out of the question for Bombus or
Melipona, not being a man, to see with Mr.
Darwin's eyes, as it would be for Mr. Darwin,
not being a bee, to work with Melipona s tools.
Slight deflexions of habit, artificially provoked,
in the more highly endowed insect, do not
furnish the smallest presumption of the genesis
of new endowments in its inferior sisterhood

The Three Barriers. 179

* It may easily be supposed^ in these researches,
is but a sorry substitute for, *It has actually
been observed^ The true tokens of consummate
geometrical prescience can never be simulated
by tentative effort. Had Mr. Darwin lived two
thousand years ago, his ceral experiments might
have furnished a target for the shafts of Aristo-
phanes;^ but, indifferent alike to savant and
satirist, Melipona was then building her cells
no better, and Mellifica no worse. Those ex-
planations of the mystery of cell-making which
really explain nothing are, however, moderation
itself to the inimitable though unconscious
legerdemain which converts an unanswerable and
unblunted objection to our author's favourite
solvent, drawn from the phenomena of insect
sterility and caste, into the occasion of a pane-
gyric on its power. It is his business to prove
that natural selection has done certain wonderful
things : See, he virtually says, what wonderful
things, far beyond my own expectation, natural
selection can do? A more flagrant intrusion
of unpruned fancy into a domain sacred to the
severities of observation can scarcely be con-
ceived.

" The social insects, like those lower in the

^ "Clouds," 147-153.

2 " Origin of Species,'' p. 242.

i8o Scientific Sophisms.

scale, must have started, on Mr. Darwin's view,
as ordinary male and female, with a common
share of individual labour ; on a par, in this
respect, with a flock of geese, or a herd of cattle,
or a community of mankind. Now let any
breeder of cattle consider through what agencies
a variety could be attained of which only one
birth in five should be a bull or a cow, the other
four being natural neuters, devoted subjects of
their perfect sister, but sworn foes of her spouse.
It is an aptitude precisely analogous to this
that has produced, we are asked to believe, the
economy of the bee-hive. Or let any trans-
atlantic admirer of the 'domestic institution'
of Formica rufescens, turn over in his mind the
means by which every third man-child born on
his estate should be ten times the size of the
rest of the family;^ or each alternate female
be fitted for a nurse while forbidden to be a

^ Mr. Darwin, in noting the fact that " the neuters of
several ants differ, not only from the fertile females and
males, but from each other, sometimes to an almost in-
credible degree," says, " The difference between them is
the same as if we were to see a set of workmen building
a house, of whom many were five feet high, and many
sixteen feet high — but we must further suppose that the
larger workmen had heads four times as big as those of
the smaller men, and jaws nearly five times as big." —
" Origin of Species," pp. 260, 261.

The Three Barriers. i8i

mother ; and he would have the measure of the
intrinsic likelihood of the Darwinian doctrine,
in its bearing on that insect and its confede-
rates. It were idle to enlarge. There are
worthier lessons to be gleaned from the world
of instinct than such as affroat all legitimate
analogy, and gratuitously dissociate the marvels
of nature from their only true solvent, the
ordination of God."

Turning now from the disordered dreams of
unpruned fancy to the severities of observation ;
from ingenious suppositions of what might have
been, to the actual certainties that are ; we find
all Comparative Anatomy tending towards the
recognition and extrication of three supreme
values, in the grouping of animals, and the
graduation of life, past as well as present : —
the Backbone, the Breast, and the Brain.
And the key to the significance of animal life
and its prerogatives, thus grouped and graduated,
is not, and cannot be, Selective Development,
but is, and must be. Elective Design.

" The first leet, in the ascending order, takes
note of all animals, as Vertebrates or Sub-
vertebrates : for every individual organism en-
dowed with a backbone, there are countless
millions without it. Hence this first or exterior

1 82 , Scientific Sophisms.

leet leaves a master-group, palpably supreme
in framework and ground-plan over three other
groups — the Articulate, the Convolute, and the
Radiate — between which and the master-group
the Barrier of Backbone stands impassable ;
at least till it is explained how a butterfly could
become a bird, or a snail a serpent, or a star-
fish acquire the skeleton of the salmon or the
shark. It is like the going forth of a Divine
decree : * One shall be taken, and three shall be
left;.

"The second leet. Sub-vertebrates out of
view, takes account of Vertebrates themselves
as Mammals or Sub-mammals. Among the
elect it makes an inner election. Besides the
Backbone it exacts the Breast; shedding off",
as before, three well-marked groups subordinate
to the master-group of Mammals or Sucklers.
These breastless tribes are Birds, Reptiles, and
Fishes; holding high, low, and medium rank
among themselves, not so much on the principle
of skeleton, or its specialized offshoots, as on
that of characters which are correlated to the
development of care for their young. , . .
Still the Mammal, by its endowment of the
fostering bosom, stands elect, aloft, and apart —
Bird, Reptile, Fish, far beneath in the scale ;

The Three Barriers. 183

and till it is shown how an animal that never
got suck stumbled on the capacity of giving
what was never given it, the BREAST will
stand, against all dreams of development, com-
panion-barrier to the Backbone. Again is
heard the elective edict : ' One shall be taken,
and three shall be left/

*' Third, last, innermost leet : note has to be
taken among the Mammalia themselves, from
the Marsupials to Man, of the presence or
absence of one testing character, and that the
chief — the Perfect Brain. This is found in one
creature, occupying, as it were, the inner ring
and core of the concentric circles of vitality, and
in one alone. In the lowest variety of man it
is present — present in the Negro or the Bush-
man as in the civilized European ; and absent
in all below man — absent in the ape or the
elephant as truly as in the kangaroo or the
duckmole. To all men the pleno-cerebral type
is common : to man^ as such, it ispeadiar. And
till we hear of some Simian tribe which
speculates on its own origin, or discusses its
own place in the scale of being, we shall be
safe in opposing the Human Brain, with
its sign in language, culture, capacity of pro-
gress, as barrier the third to Mr. Darwin's

184 Scientific Sophisms.

scheme." ^ " And thus, as in the former leets,
are the triple tribe of under-brains walled off
from the Brain of Man.^ A third time there
falls a voice from the Excellent Glory: 'One
shall be taken, and three shall be left* "

Below the fish, how powerless comparatively,
all creatures are ! The primates of sulD-verte-
brate nature are the ant and the bee. Most
mollusks are anchored to one spot for life, and
the bulkiest of crustaceans, shorn of other
locomotion, could only crawl in shallow waters
among his rocks and sands. The advent of
the backbone is the advent of animal power :
the type of an all-pervading and resistless
energy. The wing of the eagle, the jaw of

^ " The Three Barriers : Notes on Mr. Darwin's * Origin
of Species.'" Blackwood & Sons. Pp. 88, et seqq. To
the highly-gifted author of this brilliant little book— a
book as admirable in method as unanswerable in effect —
I gratefully record niy obligations.

2 " By a purely inductive process, the sub-human mam-
malia have been carefully distributed into the wave-
brained, the smooth-brained, and the loose-brained, re-
presented respectively by the ape, the beaver, and the
kangaroo ; with a result, so far as the two departments
of science are comparable, like that of the application of
Kepler's laws to the planetary motions : the subjects of
the classification fall, for the first time, into their true
places — a mob of animals becomes a regular army."

The Three Barriers. 185

the crocodile, the spring of the tiger, the teeth
of the shark, the terrible coil of the boa-con-
strictor ; the backbone is the basis of them
all.

Below the mammal, again, how loveless^ by-
comparison, is the world of life ! There are
no sub-mammalian mothers; animals below
that line are parents or producers only. The
crossing of that line is a great work of Deity.
God creates a new thing in the earth when He
hangs the nursling on the mother's breast, and
bids the two be as one. Together with the
prerogative of the nurturing bosom there start
up everywhere, on land and sea, the most
touching examples of brute devotion and of
passionate maternity.

Deep calleth unto deep, and the cry is still
Excelsior I Nature is a hierarchy of which the
head is man. Mind, language, worship, civili-
zation ; the will to determine, the tongue to
speak, the hand to do ; these — in their bound-
less purport — are all lacking until the Creator
plants upon the scene the solitary owner of the
Perfect Brain. Named in one word, all these
are wisdom; and Man, "thinker of God*s
thoughts after Him," is, among uncounted
myriads of lower existences, on this earth,
Only Wise. Of this superiority, the human

1 86 . Scientific Sophisms.

brain is the badge. The attempts that have
been made to minimize, and even to efface its
significance, will be noticed in the sequel ;
but the force and effect of that significance are
not to be invalidated and cannot be impaired
by disputations in detail. The one broad cha-
racteristic fact remains beyond dispute : all
healthy human brains are structurally perfect ;
but the highest brute brains are structurally
imperfect. The human brain is pleno-cerebral ;
all other brains are manco-cerebral. The
human brain, in its least cultivated manifes-
tations, retains the latent franchise of progres-
sive reason ; all other brains exhibit the rigid
circumscription of unprogressive instinct. No
brute is susceptible of human culture ; while,
on the other hand, of that culture there is no
human infant that is not susceptible. Between
these two, the difference thus seen is nothing
less than a difference absolutely immeasurable.

CHAPTER X.

A TOMS.

1^7

" Bodies are thoughts precipitated into space." — Novalis.

" The universe is a thought^ as well as a thing. . . .
The thought includes the origination of the forces and
their law, as well as the combination and use of them.
. . . It follows then, that the universe is controlled by
a single thought, or the thought of an individual thinker."
— President Porter,

" Molecular law is the profoundest expression of the
Divine Will." — Professor Dana,

** To us also, through every star, through every blade
of grass, is not a God made visible, if we will open our
minds and eyes ?" — Carlyle,

i88

CHAPTER X.
ATOMS.

But these magnificent achievements — the
Vertebral Column, the Fostering Bosom, the
Perfect Brain — ^with their inexplicable origin,
their profound significance, their limitless re-
sults, have been accomplished by the cosmical
atoms alone. Outside those atoms, or beyond
them, there is not now, nor has there been at
any time, any existence whatever. No sub-
stance, no essence, no entity, no force, no
motion. " Matter is the origin of all that
exists ; all natural and mental forces are in-
herent in it."^ "The existing world lay po-
tentially in the cosmic vapour."* For "the
fundamental proposition of evolution " is, as we
have seen, "that the whole world, living and
not living, is the result of the mutual inter-
action, according to definite laws, of the forces
possessed by the molecules of which the
primitive nebulosity of the universe was com-

* Buchner, ut stip,, p. 96.
2 Prof. Huxley, ut sup,, p. 64.
189

I go ScUntific Sophis^ns,

posed." ^ In a word — and that, the word of
Lucretius, adopted and adorned in the Belfast
Address — " The Atoms are the first beginnings."
What then are these ultimate inorganic atoms
on which (according to the hypothesis of Devel-
opment) everything depends ? The idea ex-
pressed by the word itself is simply the idea
of " matter " in minimis, arising only from an
arrest by a supposed physical limit, of a geo-
metrical divisibility possible without end. But
" things which cannot be cut " might be all
alike ; or they might be variously different,
inter se ; and, on setting out in this inquiry it
is necessary to know on which of these two
assumptions we are to proceed. If the ma-
terialist is to be credited with any logical ex-
actness, it is the former assumption alone that
is admissible. When he asks for no 7nore than
matter for his purpose of constructing a uni-
verse, his demand is restricted to the essentials
of mattery the characters which enter into its
definition. It is from these alone that he
pledges himself to deduce all the accessory
characters which appear in one place though
not in another, and which discriminate the
several provinces of nature. It is in perfect

^ Prof. Huxley, ut suprd,, p. 64. Vide infrd, Appendix,
Note J.

Atoms. 191

accordance with this, that the " atomists," says
Lange, " attributed to matter only the simplest
of the various properties of things — those,
namely, which are indispensable for the pre-
sentation of a something in space and time, and
their aim was to evolve from these alone the
whole assemblage of phenomena." "They it
was," he adds, **who gave the first perfectly
clear notion of what we are to understand by
matter as the basis of all phenomena. With
the positing of this notion, materialism stood
complete, as the first perfectly clear and con-
sequent theory of all phenomena." *

If further corroboration of this statement
were needed, it might be adduced from Mr.
Herbert Spencer's definition of Evolution,
already quoted :* — " Evolution is a change from
an indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a de-
finite coherent heterogeneity, through continuous
differentiations and integrations." And again :
— " From the earliest traceable cosmical changes
down to the latest results of civilization we shall
find that the transformation of the homogeneous
into the heterogeneous is that in which evolu-
tion essentially consists." In perfect consis-
tency with these statements Mr. Spencer further

^ " Geschichte des Materialismus," i. pp. 8, 9.
2 Vide suprdy p. 27.

192 Scientific Sophisms,

contends that the properties of the different
elements (/.^., the chemical elements, hydrogen,
carbon, etc.) " result from differences of arrange-
ment, arising from the compounding and re-
compounding of ultimate homogeneous units^^
So that, to sum up all in one word, there is
but, as he further tells us, "one ultimate form
of matter, out of which the successively more
complex forms of matter are built up."*

These statements are not lacking, either in
clearness or consistency. Their only fault is
that they are not correct. The " one ultimate
form of matter" is not forthcoming. The
" homogeneous extended solids " are not homo-
geneous. We are not to be surprised if we
should see sixty-two out of the sixty-three
"elements" fall to pieces analytically before
our eyes. If we would speak positively of the
simplicity of phosphorus or carbon, we are
warned that "there are no recognised ele-
mentary substances, if the expression means
substances known to be elementary. What
chemists for convenience call elementary sub-
stances, are merely substances which they have
thus far failed to decompose."

But let the contrary supposition be admitted.

* Contemp, Rev»y June, 1872.

" " Principles of Psychology," vol. i. p. 155.

Atoms. 193

Let it be supposed that the alleged homogeneity
were as real as now it is imaginary. Let the
appeal be allowed which all logical atomists
make to the case of isomeric bodies, and espe-
cially to that of allotropic varieties. Let such
varieties of appearance as those presented by
carbon^ and phosphorus^ be attributed, not to
any qualitative cause, but to a different group-
ing of the atoms ; the morphological differences,
if adequately obtained, will still contribute no
explanation of the observed variations of at-
tribute. Vary in imagination, as you please,
the adjustments of their homologous sides, so
as to build molecules of several types, the
question will still remain unanswered, — *' What
is there in the arrangement ^ * ^ to occasion
* activity * in phosphorus, while the arrangement
b a c produces * inertness ?* " Where the pro-
ducts differ only in geometrical properties, and
consequently in optical, the explanation may
be admissible, the form and the laying of the
bricks determining the outline and the density
of the structure. But by no device can the
deduction be extended from the physical to the

^ Charcoal, black-lead, and diamond.

'In the yellow, semi-transparent, inflammable form ;
and again as an opaque, dark red substance, combustible
only at a much higher temperature.

194 Scientific Sophisms.

chemical properties : to these last heterogeneity
is essential. To deduce chemical phenomena
from mechanical conditions, if it be not an
impossible conception, may possibly be a " fig-
ment of the intellect," but it is a figment with-
out any pretence to " verification."

" Even in the last resort, if we succeed in getting all
our atoms alike, we do not rid ourselves of an unex-
plained heterogeneity ; it is simply transferred from their
nature as units to their rules of combination. Whether
the qualitative difference between hydrogen and each of
the other elements is conditional upon a distinction of
kind in the atoms, or on definite varieties in their mode
of numerical or geometrical union, these conditions are
not provided for by the mere existence of homogeneous
atoms ; and nothing that you can do with these atoms,
within the limits of their definition, will get the required
heterogeneity out of them. Make them up into molecules
by what grouping or architecture you will ; still the
difference between hydrogen and iron is not that be-
tween one and three, or any other number ; or between
shaped solids built off in one direction and similar ones
built off in another, which may turn out like a right and a
left glove. If hydrogen were the sole * primordial,' and
were transmutable, by select shuffling of its atoms, into
every one of its present sixty-two associates, both the
tendency to these special combinations, and the effects
of them would be as little deducible from the homogene-
ous datum as, on the received view, are the chemical
phenomena from mechanical conditions. I still think,
therefore, that if you assume atoms at all, you may as
well take the whole sixty-three sorts in a lot. And this
startling multiplication of the original monistic assump-

Atoms. 195

tion, I understand Professor Tyndall to admit as indis-
pensable." *

This witness is true. The " original monistic
assumption " is now discarded by Professor Tyn-
dall^ and Professor Bain as emphatically as by
Mr. Martineau himself. The " ultimate homo-
geneous units " of Mr. Spencer are now found to
be utterly inadequate to the task required of
them. They must be in motion ; they must be of
various shapes ; they must be of as many kinds
as there are chemical elements ; for how could
we possibly get water if there were only hydro-
gen elements to work with } And when, by
means of this very considerable enlargement of
the original datum we have got water, what is
that further enlargement by which we should be
able so to manipulate our ever-increasing re-
sources as to educe, for example, consciousness ?
Let some Power so ordain, and some Wisdom
so contrive, that all the atoms are affected by
gravitation and polarity ; let there be, as
Fechner insists that there is, a difference
among molecules; let there be the inorganic^
which can change only their place, like the

^ The Rev. James Martineau : Modem Materialism
{Contemp, Rev.y vol. xxvii. p. 338).
2 For Prof. Bain's dictay see " Mind and Body ** ; pp.

124-135-

196 Scientific Sophisms.

particles in an undulation; and the organic,
which can change their order , as in a globule that
turns itself inside out. What then? When you
have to pass from mere sentiency to thought
and will, your Theory of Development is as
impotent as ever until you have obtained — ^what
only a further hypothesis can give — a handful
of Leibnitz's monads to serve as souls in little.

'* But surely you must observe that this
'matter' of yours alters its style with every
change of service; starting as a beggar, with
scarce a rag of ' property ' to cover its bones,
it turns up as a prince when large undertakings
are wanted . . . It is easy travelling through
the stages of such a hypothesis ; you deposit
at your bank a round sum ere you start, and
drawing on it piecemeal at every pause, com-
plete your grand tour without a debt" ^

If now, from fictitious fancies such as these,
we turn to the actual facts, we shall find that
the whole argument sums itself up in a single
remark of Sir William Thomson : " The as-
sumption of atoms can explain no property of
body which has not previously been attributed
to the atoms themselves."

^ Martineau : '* Religion as Affected by Modem Ma-
terialism.''

Atoms. 197

The "atom" of the modern mathematical
physics has, accordingly, given up its preten-
sion to stand as an absolute beginning, and
now serves only as a necessary rest for ex-
hausted analysis, before setting forth on the
return journey of deduction. " A simple ele-
mentary atom," says Professor Balfour Stewart,
" is probably in a state of ceaseless activity and
change of form, but it is, nevertheless, always
the same."^ "The molecule," (here identical
with "atom," as the author is speaking of a
simple substance, as hydrogen), " though indes-
tructible, is not a hard rigid body," says Pro-
fessor Clerk Maxwell, "but is capable of
internal movements, and when these are ex-
cited it emits rays, the wave-length of which
is a measure of the time of vibration of the
molecule."^ But "change of form" and "in-
ternal movements" are impossible without
shifting parts, and altered relations ; and where
then is the final simplicity of the atom ? It
is no longer a pure unit, but a numerical whole.
And as part can separate from part, not only
in thought but in the phenomena, how is it an
" atom " at all ? " What is there, beyond an
arbitrary dictum, to prevent a part which

* " The Conservation of Energy," p. 7.

* "A Discourse on Molecules,** p. 12.

198 Scientific Sophisms.

changes its relation to its fellows from chang-
ing its relation to the whole — removing to the
outside ? Such a body, though serving as an
element in chemistry, is mechanically com-
pound, and has a constitution of its own,
which raises as many questions as it answers,
and wholly unfits it for offering to the human
mind a point of ultimate rest. It has accord-
ingly been strictly kept to a penultimate
position in the conception of philosophical
physicists like Gassendi, Herschel, and Clerk
Maxwell, and of masters in the logic of science,
like Lotze and Stanley Jevons."

Nor is it to be overlooked that the sixty-three
kinds of atoms are not at liberty to be neutral
to one another, or to run an indeterminate round
of experiments in association, within the limits
of possible permutation. "Each is already
provided with its select list of admissible com-
panions ; and the terms of its partnership with
every one of these are strictly prescribed ; so
that not one can modify, by the most trivial
fraction, the capital it has to bring. Vainly,
for instance, does the hydrogen atom, with its
low figure and light weight make overtures to
the more considerable oxygen element; the
only reply will be, either none of you or two
of you. And so on throughout the list." It is

Atoms. 1 99

in view of this property of admitting certain
definite possibilities, while yet they are so
limited as to fence off and exclude all competing
possibilities, that Sir John Herschel felt himself
compelled to describe the atoms as possessing
" all the characteristics of manufactured articles^

This verdict amuses Dr. Tyndall ; nothing
more. " He twice ^ dismisses it with a super-
cilious laugh; for which perhaps, as for the
atoms it concerns, there may be some suppressed
^ ratio sufficiens.^ But the problem thus plea-
santly touched is not one of those which solventur
risu ; and, till some better grounded answer can
be given to it, that on which the large and
balanced thought of Herschel and the masterly
penetration of Clerk Maxwell have alike settled
with content, may claim at least a provisional
respect." *

To conclude. The conception of an infinitude
of discrete atoms, when pushed to its hypo-
thetical extreme, brings them no nearer to unity
than homogeneity^ — ^an attribute which itself
implies that they are separate and comparable
members of a genus. And what is the result of
comparing them ?

* Belfast Address, p. 26 ; and Fortnightly Review^
Nov., 1875, ?• 598.
' Martineau : Contemporary Review^ vol. xxvii. p. 345.

200 Scientific Sophisms.

They " are conformed," we are assured, " to
a constant type with a precision which is. not
to be found in the sensible properties of the
bodies which they constitute. In the first place,
the mass of each individual," " and all its other
properties, are absolutely unalterable. In the
second place, the properties of all" "of the
same kind are absolutely identical."^ Here
then, to adopt the weighty words of Mr. Mar-
tineau, "we have an infinite assemblage of
phenomena of Resemblance. But further, these
atoms, besides the internal vibration of each, are
agitated by movements carrying them in all
directions, now along free paths, and now into
collisions.* Here therefore, we have phenomena
of Difference in endless variety. And so it
comes to this : that our unitary datum breaks
up into a genus of innumerable contents, and
its individuals are affected both with ideally
perfect correspondences and with numerous con-
trasts of movement. What intellect can pause
and compose itself to rest in this vast and
restless crowd of assumptions } Who can restrain
the ulterior question, — WHENCE then these
myriad types of the same letter imprinted on

^ Prof. Maxwell's " Discourse on Molecules," p. ii.
2 " Theory of Heat" By J. Clerk Maxwell, M.A.,
LL.D., F.R.SS. London and Edinburgh. Pp. 310, 311.

Atoms. 20 1

the earth, the sun, the stars, as if the very mould
used here had been lent to Sirius, and passed
on through the constellations ? "

For answer to this "ulterior question," we
shall find none more conclusive, none more
authoritative, than that of Professor Maxwell : —

" No theory of evolution can be formed to
account for the similarity of the molecules
throughout all time, and throughout the whole
region of the stellar universe, for evolution
necessarily implies continuous change, and the
molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of
generation or destruction."

Again he says : " None of the processes of
Nature, since the time when Nature began, have
produced the slightest difference in the proper-
ties of any molecule. On the other hand, the
exact equality of each molecule to all others of
the same kind precludes the idea of its being
eternal and self-existent. We have reached
the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when
we have admitted that because matter cannot
be eternal and self-existent it must have been
created."

"These molecules," he adds, "continue this
day as they were created, perfect in number,
and measure, and weight ; and from the inef-
faceable characters impressed on them we may

202 Scientific Sophisms,

learn that those aspirations after truth in state-
ment, and justice in action, which we reckon
among our noblest attributes as men, are ours
because they are the essential constituents of
the image of Him, who in the beginning created
not only the heaven and the earth, but the
materials of which heaven and earth consist" ^

A fit pendant to this noble utterance is fur-
nished in the words of Professor Pritchard, who,
quoting this passage, adds, —

"And this is the true outcome of the deepest^
the most exacts and the most recent science of our
age A grander utterance has not come from
the mind of a philosopher since the days when
Newton concluded his Principia by his immor-
tal scholium on the majestic Personality of the
Creator and Lord of the Universe." *

' " Discourse on Molecules."

' Address at the Brighton Congress, October, 1874.

CHAPTER XL
APES.

ao3

" Quince, Bless thee, Bottom ! bless thee ! thou art
translated.** — A Midsummer Nigkfs Dream^ Act iii.,
Scene i.

" King. How do you, pretty lady ?

Ophelia, Well, God 'ield you ! They say the owl was
a baker's daughter. Alack 1 we know what we are, but
know not what we may be." — Hamlet^ Act iv. Scene v.

S04

CHAPTER XI.
APES,

" If," says Prof. Tyndall, addressing his Bir-
mingham audience, " If to any one of us
were given the privilege of looking back
through the seons across which life has
crept towards its present outcome, his vision
would ultimately reach a point when the pro-
genitors of this assembly could not be called
human. From that humble society, through
the interaction of its members and the storing
up of their best qualities, a better one em-
erged ; from this again a better still ; until
at length, by the integration of infinitesimals
through ages of amelioration, we came to be
what we are to-day." ^

If we ask for some warrant of evidence
in support of this series of assertions founded
on assumption, Mr. Darwin replies that "On
the principle of Natural Selection with di-

* "Science and Man:" Fortnightly Revie^v, 1877, p.
116.

905

2o6 Scientific Sophisms.

vergence of character, it does not seem
incredible, that from some such low and in-
termediate form as the lower algae, both
animals and plants may have been developed ;
and if we admit this, we must admit that
all organic beings which have ever lived on
this earth may have descended from some
one primordial form."^

In other words, and to speak more pre-
cisely, '* Born of Electricity and Albumen, the
simple monad is the first living atom; the
microscopic animalcules, the snail, the worm,
the reptile, the fish, the bird, and the quad-
ruped, all spring from its invisible loins.
The human similitude at last appears in the
character of the monkey; the monkey rises
into the baboon ; the baboon is exalted to the
ourang outang; and the chimpanzee, with a
more human toe and shorter arms, gives birth
to Man."»

What Sir David Brewster has here done
for the Fauna on this principle of Develop-
ment, Hugh Miller has in like manner done
for the Flora, when he tells us that according
to this theory "dulse and hen-ware became,
through a very wonderful metamorphosis,

* " Origin of Species :" p. 519.

3 " North British Review," 1845, p. 483.

Apes. 207

cabbage and spinach ; that kelp-weed and
tangle burgeoned into oaks and willows ;
and that slack, rope-weed, and green-raw,
shot up into mangel-wurzel, rye-grass and
clover," ^

And all this — in Mr. Darwin's opinion —
" does not seem incredible." There must have
been — we have his word for it — "a series of
forms graduating insensibly from some ape-
like creature to man as he now exists." *

How to derive the " ape-like creature "
himself } By a similar process : — " a series
of forms graduating insensibly" from a tad-
pole to a monkey. The Ape is the imme-
diate, but the Ascidian is the remote pro-
genitor of the genus Homo, And these
Ascidians, which " resemble tadpoles in shape,
and swim by means of a vibratile tail, which
they shake off when they quit the larva
state and assume the sessile condition," " have
been recently placed, by some naturalists,
among the Vermes or worms."

As to the ape-like creature, —

" Man is descended from a hairy quadruped,
furnished with a tail and pointed ears, prob-
ably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant

* " Footprints of the Creator,'* p. 226.
2 " Descent of Man ; " vol. i. p. 235.

2o8 Scientific Sophisms.

of the old world.** ^ And again : — ^^ The early
progenitors of man were no doubt well covered
with hair, both sexes having beards ; their
ears were pointed and capable of movement ;
and their bodies were provided with a tail,
having the proper muscles. . . . The
males were provided with great canine teeth,
which served them as formidable weapons.** *

Then as to the Ape's descent from his
Ascidian ancestor : —

"The most ancient progenitors in the
Kingdom of the Vertebrata at which we are
able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently
consisted of a group of marine animals, re-
sembling the larvae of existing Ascidians.
These animals probably gave rise to a group
of fishes, as lowly organized as the Lancelet ;
and from these the Ganoids and other fishes
like the Lepidosiren, must have been devel-
oped. From such fish a very small advance
would carry us on to the amphibians. . . .
Birds and reptiles were once intimately con-
nected together, and the Monotremata now,
in a slight degree, connect mammals with
reptiles. But no one can at present say by
what line of descent the three higher and

* " Descent of Man,** vol. ii. p. 389.
' Ibid,^ vol. i. pp. 206, 207.

Apes. 209

related classes, namely, mammals, birds, and
reptiles, were derived from either of the two
lower vertebrate classes, namely amphibians
and fishes. In the class of mammals the steps
are not difficult to conceive which led from the
ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsu-
pials ; and from these to the early progenitors
of the placental animals. We may thus ascend
to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not
wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simi-
adae then branched off into two great stems,
the New World and the Old World monkeys ;
and from the latter, at a remote period, man,
the wonder and glory of the universe, pro-
ceeded. ... If a single link in this chain
had never existed, man would not have been
what he now is. Unless we wilfully close
our eyes, we may, with our present know^
ledge, approximately recognize our parentage,
nor need we feel ashamed of it."^

"If a single link in this chain had never
existed " ! Why, even as Mr. Darwin has
imagined it, it is not a chain at all. There
is no continuity of concatenation. Even its
very first link has to be imagined. And
even when it has been imagined it is found
to consist — not really, not demonstrably, but

1 " Descent of Man," voL i. pp. 212, 213.

2IO Scie7itific Sophisms.

only — "apparently" "of a group of marine
animals." Of this group we have no other
view than a mere "glance," — "an obscure
glance." But this first link, even when on the
strength of an obscure glance it has been
pronounced "apparent," is still not even
*' apparently " connected with any other. The
connection required by the hypothesis — very
far indeed from being " apparent " — is " prob-
able " only. " These animals probably gave
rise to a group of fishes," "and from these
the Ganoids and other fishes must have been
developed." But why , " must have been ? "
there is no sort of necessity except that which
is due to the exigencies of the theory. " From
such fish a very small advance would carry
us on to the amphibians." Possibly : but this
v^ry small advance is not to be had. Mr.
Darwin's argument is made by himself to
depend on the strength of his "chain"; and
the strength of his chain is precisely that of
its weakest link. But before all questions of
strength there must be the prior fact of ex-
istence. Chains are made not by an aggrega-
tion of detached links, but by their continuity
of concatenation. "A very small advance," —
possibly : but to advance at all without the
aid of the missing link^ is to abandon the

Apes. 2 1 1

pretence of a chain. Yet this is precisely
Mr. Darwin's chosen mode of progression.

" In the class of mammals," he tells us, " the
steps are not difficult to conceive which led
from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient
Marsupials ; and from these to the early progeni-
tors of the placental animals." In this theory
of Ascensive Development " the steps " are every
thing. But where are they ? Their discovery is
hopeless, their demonstration is impossible ; no
matter : they " are not difficult to conceive " !

"We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae."
" Thus " : by steps which cannot be found ;
steps on which no one ever stood ; but still,
steps which Mr. Darwin finds it " not difficult
to conceive." And then : " from these to the
Simiadae" "the interval is not wide." So be
it : but however it be, it is nothing to the
purpose. That •which is to the purpose is not
the width, but the fact of " the interval." And
this fact of " the interval " is attested by Mr.
Darwin himself. And with this " interval " be-
fore him, and these aerial " steps," and these
appearances which are "apparent" only to
"an obscure glance," Mr. Darwin can so far
overlook the obvious and actual, in his zeal
for the ideal and imaginary, as to say — " If
a single link in this chain had never existed ! "

212 Scientific Sophisms.

Even this is not the worst For, he adds
'' Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may,
with our present knowledge, approximately
recognize our parentage." " Our present know-
ledge " ! Why, that is merely our present want
of knowledge ; for it is he himself who tells
us that " no one can at present say by what
line of descent the mammals," i.e,^ ourselves
"were derived."

In the hands of Prof. Huxley, the specious
plausibilities of Mr. Darwin commonly assume
the form of dogmatic affirmations; but in re-
lation to this matter of the Descent of Man
from the Ape, the cautious and conditional
generalisations of Mr. Huxley furnish fresh
proof, if fresh proof be needed, of the thoroughly
conjectural character of Mr. Darwin's theory.

" If," says the learned Professor, " If Man
be separated by no greater structural barrier
from the brutes than they are from one an-
other — THEN it SEEMS to foUow that IF any
process of physical causation can be discovered
by which the genera and families of ordinary
animals have been produced, that process of
causation is amply sufficient to account for
the origin of Man. In other words, IF it
could be shown that the Marmosets, for ex-
ample, have arisen by gradual modification of

Apes. 213

the ordinary Platyrhini, or that both Marmosets
and Platyrhini are modified ramifications of a
primitive stock — THEN, there would be no
rational ground for doubting that man MIGHT
have originated, in the one case, by the gra-
dual modification of a man-like ape ; or, in
the other case, as a ramification of the same
primitive stock as those apes." ^

Widely different from Mr, Darwin's " chain,"
with every " single link " in its place, this re-
iterated relation of " If" and "then " ; with its
conditional sequence of what, after all, only
"seems to follow"; and its ultimate conclusion
that " Man might have originated," either in a
given mode, or in some other mode not given.

Mr. Huxley adds, ** I adopt Mr. Darwin's
hypothesis therefore, subject to the production
of proof that physiological species MAY be pro-
duced by selective breeding." ^ But this desid-
erated "proof" is precisely that very thing con-
cerning which both Mr. Huxley and Mr. Darwin
are agreed that it is not producible. Flourens,
and Cuvier, Buffbn, and De Candolle, Miiller,
and John Hunter, Lyell, and Lawrence, Agas-
siz, and Pouchet, though they know nothing of

^ Huxley's " Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
Williams & Norgate : 1863. Pp. 105, 106.
2 Ibid,^ p. 108.

214 Scientific Sophisms.

the transmutations hypothecated by Mr. Dar-
win, yet they do know the "insurmountable
barrier" that "Nature " has erected against the
change of species.^ They know that the Lin-
naean maxim — Species naturce opus — rests on
foundations too broad and deep to be shaken by
casual excess of statement, or semblance of per-
plexity. While mere varieties, as superficial
excursions from type are technically termed, are
never mutually infertile, animals of different
species are physiologically contrasted with such
varieties by reciprocal repugnance or punitive
sterility. The mastiff and the terrier freely
inter-breed ; not so the horse and the ass : the
mongrel dog is a parent; the hybrid mule is
not. And the hybrid individual perishes, — at
genus immortale manet. For it is a funda-
mental axiom that animals incapable of common
off-spring cannot liave sprung from common
ancestors.

On this head therefore, the evidence against
Mr. Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species is
overwhelming ; and no one knows this better
than Mr. Huxley himself. When therefore he
tells us that he adopts Mr. Darwin's hypothesis,
" subject to the production of proof that physio-
logical species may be produced by selective

1 Vide Appendix, Note C.

Apes. 215

breeding," we are to understand by this that he
does not adopt it at all. For, as he is careful to
add, " Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypo-;
thesis must be provisional so long as one link in
the chain of evidence is wanting ; and so long
as all the animals and plants certainly produced,
by selective breeding from a common stock
are fertile with one another, that link will be
wanting." ^

So long then as Nature remains what it is,
" that link," — Mr. Huxley himself being witness,
— will still be " wanting." And yet Mr. Darwin
can say — " If a single link in this chain had,
never existed"! According to Mr, Darwin,
Man is what he is, because he has been inextric-
ably linked with the lower animals — with the
" ascidian," with the " primordial form " by a
chain of which no " single link " is wanting. Ac-
cording to Mr. Huxley, Man is what he is, not-
withstanding the chasms in Mr. Darwin's imag-
inary chain : chasms which Mr. Darwin cannot
cross except by ** steps " imaginary and aerial,
which it is " not difficult to conceive " ; but still
"steps" which have no corresponding "links" in
the world of physiology and fact ; steps which
cannot be taken at all — not even in imagination
— without reversing the Constitution and Course
^ " Man's Place in Nature,'' p. 107^

2i6 Scientific Sophisms.

of Nature. For Nature knows nothing of "a
group of animals having all the characters ex-
hibited by species " having " ever been origin-
ated by selection, whether artificial or natural,"^

But although such groups are utterly unknown
to Nature they are absolutely necessary to the
theory of Ascensive Development. Since there-
fore they cannot be found, they must be
" conceived " ; and to conceive them is, in Mr.
Darwin's opinion, "not difficult": {**Facilis
descensus'* !) and Prof. Haeckel has conceived
them accordingly. Again and again he tells
us that Moneray worms, and fishes, were "our
ancestors." We are reminded that when we
speak of " poor worms," or " miserable worms,"
we should remember that "WITHOUT ANY
DOUBT a long series of extinct worms were our
direct ancestors." ^ He recognizes twenty-two
distinct stages in our evolution ; eight of which
belong to the invertebrate, and fourteen to the
vertebrate sub-kingdom.

Not however until he reaches the Sixth of
these imaginary stages does he arrive at the
earliest worms, the Arc/ielmintheSy now repre-
sented by the Turbellaria. In order to arrive
at these "earliest worms," he hypothecates as

^ " Lay Sermons," p. 295.
2 " Anthropogenic," p. 399.

Apes. 2 1 7

number Five, the Gastrcea (Urdarmthiere) a
class of animals purely imaginary. They are
placed here because required as ancestors for
the GastrulUy itself an imaginary order, derived
from embryological exigencies.

No. 8 is another imaginary type, called by
Haeckel Chordonia, because they "developed
themselves from the Annelidce, by the formation
of a spinal marrow and a cliorda dorsalis " ! ^ It
is well known that between the Invertebrata
and the Vertebrata there is no transition form.
It is also known (by Mr. Darwin) that, by
means of the Ascidians, we are supposed to
**have at last gained a clue to the source whence
the Vertebrata have been derived." * But as to
that " group of marine animals resembling the
larvae of existing Ascidians," which were our
"most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of
the Vertebrata " : * — who they were, or what,
or whence, is known to no one but Professor
Haeckel! True, even he does not profess to
have any producible evidence that such animals
ever existed ; they are destitute of any single
living representative ; there is no fossil evidence
of their former existence ; their sole raison d'itre

^ " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 583.
2 " Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 205.
» Ibid.

2i8 Scientific Sophisms.

is, that they are required by the hypothesis.
In Haeckers Stammbaum here they are accord-
ingly — as veritable as Falstaff's men in buckram
— with no extinct or living representatives, but
being, for all that, " undoubtedly " the progen-
itors of all the Vertebrata, through the Ascid-
ians. Not that they were always so, however.
Far from it But — anticipating the advice of
Mrs. Louisa Chick — they knew how much de-
pended on them, and they " made an effort." ^
It succeeded beyond all expectation. They
" developed THEMSELVES " ! How ? By the
simplest possible process, in the easiest possible
manner. Nothing more than — " the formation
of a spinal marrow and a chorda dorsalis " !

(14), The Sozura^ is an order of Amphibia
interpolated "because required as a necessary
transition stage between the true Amphibia,"
(13,) and (15) The Protamniotay or general
stem of the mammalia, reptiles, and birds.
" What the Protamniota were like," says Prof.
Huxley, "I do not suppose any one is in a
position to say." ^ And yet we are told that

* " It's necessary for you to make an effort, and per-
haps a very great and painful effort which you are not
disposed to make ; but this is a world of effort you know,
Fanny, and we must never yield, when so much depends
upon us. Come ! Try ! " — Dombey &* Sony ch. i.

* " Critiques and Addresses," p. 318.

Apes. 219

" the Protamniota split up into two stems, one
that of the Mammalia^ the other common to
Reptilia and Aves'*^ And they are " proved "
to have existed ( — although no one knows what
they were like — ) because they were the neces-
sary precursors of

(16), The Pro-mammalia, the earliest pro-
genitors of all the Mammalia. And these were
followed by (17,) Marsupialia, or Kangaroos,
" But," says Prof. Huxley, " the existing Opos-
sums and Kangarops are certainly extremely
modified and remote from their ancestors the
* Prodidelphia* of which we have not, at pre-
sent, the slightest knowledge. The mode of
origin of the Monodelphia from these is a very
difficult problem, for the most part left open
by Professor Haeckel." ^ Observe : Of these
Prodidelphia "we have not, at present, the
slightest knowledge." And yet this knowledge
we " certainly " have : First, that they are the
" ancestors " of " the existing Opossums and
Kangaroos " ; and Second, that these Opossums
and Kangaroos " are certainly extremely modi-
fied and remote from their ancestors the Prodi-
delphiar No wonder that " the mode of origin
of the Monodelphia from these is a very difficult

1 " Critiques and Addresses," p. 317.

2 Ibid,, p. 318.

220 Scientific Sophisms.

problem." No wonder either that though " the
phylum of the Vertebrata is the most interest-
ing of all, and is admirably discussed by Prof.
Haeckel," ^ still it certainly does include " a few
points which seem," even to Prof. Huxley, " to
be open to discussion." ^

And now we have reached the beginning of
the end. For (i8) are the ProsimicBy or half-
apes, as the indris and loris. And from these,
through (19,) the Menocerca^ or tailed apes, we
reach, at last, (20,) the AnthropoideSy or man-like
apes, represented by the modern orang, gibbon,
gorilla, and chimpanzee. Not amongst these
however are we to look for " the direct ances-
tors of man, but amongst the tcnknown extinct
apes of the Miocene." The Pithecanthropi (21),
or dumb ape-men, come next ; an unknown
race — the nearest modern representatives of
which are cretins and idiots. ^ They must have
existed, in order to furnish means of transition
to the final stage (thus far !) /.^., (22) the
HontineSy or true men, who " developed them-
selves " from their imaginary fathers of the pre-
ceding class, " by a gradual conversion of brute
bowlings into articulate speech."

^ "Critiques and Addresses," p. 317.

2 Ibid.

' " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte," p. 592,

Apes. 221

Thus then, at last, we reach the goal : —
" There was an Ape." ^ There " must have beenl*
or there could not have been a man.* The
exigency is urgent, and the affirmation easy. It
is only when we proceed to particulars that
difficulties present themselves. Where was this
Ape ? And when ? And what ? No man can
tell.

Haeckel emphatically protests against the
notion that the modern anthropoid apes can be
regarded as our direct progenitors. " Our ape-
like ancestors," he says, " are long since extinct
Perchance their fossil remains may some time
be found in the tertiary deposits of Southern
Asia or Africa. They must nevertheless be
ranked amongst the tailless catarhine anthro-
poid apes."*

Mr. Darwin includes Europe in the field which
has been so vainly searched for this missing
link. " It is probable," he tells us, " that Africa
was formerly inhabited by extinct apes, closely
allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as
these two species are now man's nearest allies,
it is somewhat more probable that our early
progenitors lived on the African continent than

1 Vide Appendix, Note D.

3 Ibidy Note E.

* " Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschiehte," p. 577.

222 Scientific Sophisms.

elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this
subject, for an ape nearly as large as a man
. . . existed in Europe during the Upper
Miocene period ; and since so remote a period
the earth has certainly undergone many great
revolutions, and there has been ample time for
migration on the largest scale." ^ Man's pro-
genitors therefore, like this ape, may have been
Europeans, yet Europe, no less than Africa or
Asia, has hitherto utterly failed to furnish any
fossil remains, either of the immediate, or of the
remote, progenitors of man.

"The fossil remains of man hitherto dis-
covered,** says Prof. Huxley, " do not seem to
me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower
pithecoid form, by the modification of which
he has, probably, become what he is. . . .
Where then must we look for primeval man ?
Was the oldest Homo sapiens pliocene, or
miocene, or yet more ancient } In still older
strata do the fossilized bones of an. ape more
anthropoid, or a man more pithecoid than any
yet known await the researches of some un-
born palaeontologist ? Time will show.'*

So be it : dies declarabit But, meantime this
doctrine of man*s derivation from an unknown
ape, in an undiscovered continent, rests — by the
I " Descent of Man," vol. I p. 199.

Apes. 223

admissions of its advocates — not on knowledge,
but on the want of knowledge. Absolutely
powerless to derive man from the ape, it is not
less powerless to derive the cardinal ape from
the primordial form. And yet it is in the name
of Science that we are presented with this
paraded pedantry of Nescience, and are asked
to believe that " In the dim obscurity of the
Past, we can SEE " ^ the unreal nonentities, the
airy nothings, required by the " theoretic con-
ception," as they " must have " existed — " once
upon a time " ! *

1 " Descent of Man," vol. ii. p. 389.

2 Vide Appendix, Note F.

CHAPTER XII,

MEN.

tts

"In every epoch of the world, the great event, parent
of all others, is it not the arrival of a Thinker in the
world !" — Carlyle.

" Mens cujusque, is est quisque." — Cic^ Somn, Scip,^ 8.

" We are the miracle of miracles, — the great inscrutable
mystery of God. We cannot understand it, we know not
how to speak of it ; but we may feel and know, if we
like, that it is verily so." — Carlyle,

aai

CHAPTER XII.

MEN.

" The question of questions for mankind," says
Prof. Huxley, " the problem which underlies all
others, and is more deeply interesting than any
other — is the ascertainment of the place which
Man occupies in nature, and of his relations to
the universe of things."^ For the most part
indeed, men are unreflecting as well as unin-
quiring ; " But in every age, one or two restless
spirits, blessed with that constructive genius
which can only build on a seeure foundation," *
have adopted sound principles, and proceeded
by sure methods, such as those which have now
led the Professor to perceive that " though the
quaint forms of Centaurs and Satyrs have an
existence only in the realms of art, creatures
approaching man more nearly than they in
essential structure, and yet as thoroughly
brutal as the goat's or horse's half of the

1 " Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," p. 57.
« Ibid.

937

228 Scientific Sophisms.

mythical compound, are now not only known
but notorious." ^

Of these "creatures approaching man in
essential structure," yet "thoroughly brutal,"
the gorilla was once supposed to be the chief.
But the day of De Chaillu is over ; " because, in
my opinion, so long as his narrative remains in
its present state of unexplained and apparently
inexplicable confusion, it has no claim to
original authority respecting any subject what-
soever. It may be truth, but it is not
evidence." '

The comforting opinion that we had, as men,
a cerebral distinction, is also now (alas !) no
more. For we are now assured by Prof.
Huxley, in direct contradiction to the reiterated
declarations of Prof. Owen, that "so far from
the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu, and the
hippocampus minor being structures peculiar to
and characteristic of man, as they have been
over and over again asserted to be, even after
the publication of the clearest demonstration of
the reverse, it is precisely these structures which
are the most marked cerebral characters com-
mon to man with the apes. They are amongst
the most distinctly Simian peculiarities which

* " Man's Place in Nature," p. r.
' Ibid,^ p. 54.

Men. 229

the human organism exhibits." Thus, then, it
appears that while Owen and Huxley differ,
apes and men do not. It is an unfortunate
circumstance that the more we are developed
from apes, the more we differ from each other.

But are we then " developed from apes " after
all ? Is this so certain ? This " question of
questions for mankind " — how shall we answer it?
Shall we accept the dictum of Prof. Huxley, and
say that *' man is in substance and in structure
one with the brutes " ? Or shall we pronounce
that dictum a mere "theoretic conception,"
" unverified by observation and experiment " ?
In either case, what are the facts ?

1. And first, as to cerebral structure,

" It is clear," says Prof. Huxley, " that man
differs less from the chimpanzee or the orang
than these do even from the monkeys ; and that
the difference between the brains of the chim-
panzee and of man is almost insignificant, when
compared with that between the chimpanzee
brain and that of a lemur."

2. As to cerebral weighty however, on the
other hand, "It must not be overlooked that
there is a very striking difference in absolute
mass and weight between the lowest human
brain and that of the highest ape, a difference
which is all the more remarkable when we recol-

230 Scientific Sophisms.

lect that a full-grown Gorilla is probably pretty
nearly twice as heavy as a Bosjesman, or as
many an European woman." "It may be
doubted," adds the Professor, "whether a
healthy human adult brain ever weighed less
than 31 or 32 ounces, or that the heaviest
Gorilla brain has exceeded 20 ounces." ^

3. " This is a very noteworthy circumstance,
and doubtless will one day help to furnish an
explanation of the gfreat gulf which intervenes
between the lowest man and the highest ape in
intellectual power, but it has little systematic
value" [Why.?] "for the simple reason that
. . . Regarded systematically, the cerebral
differences of man and apes are not of more
than generic value, his Family distinction resting
chiefly on his dentition, his pelvis, and his lower
limbs." «

4. On this latter topic, however, Mr. Huxley
had previously said, " The pelvis, or bony girdle
of the hips, of man is a strikingly human part of
his organization." * Adding, " But now let us
turn to a nobler and more characteristic organ —
that by which the human frame seems to be,
and indeed is, so strangely distinguished from

* " Man's Place in Nature," p. 102.
» Ibid.^ p. 103.

• Ibid*<i p. ^(>,

Men. 231

all others — I mean the skull." And then, after
giving the cubical capacity of the smallest
human cranium, and of "the most capacious
Gorilla skull yet measured," he says, "Let us
assume, for simplicity's sake, that the lowest
man's skull has twice the capacity of that of the
highest Gorilla." ^

5. The sum of the statements already quoted,
then, is this : — The " Family distinction " of the
genus Homo is to be found not in his higher, but
in his lower, qualities ; "resting chiefly," not on
the size of his skull, nor on the weight of his
brain, but " on his dentition, his pelvis, and his
lower limbs." And yet, notwithstanding this,

6. "That by which the human frame is so
strongly distinguished from all others" is not
the baser structure, but the nobler substance ;
not his lower limbs, but "a nobler and more
characteristic organ . . . the skull."

7. Prof. Huxley need not think it strange if,
in despair of reconciling the conflicting members
of this duplex thesis — that Man's " family dis-
tinction " is not cranial, and yet that by which
he IS "so strongly distinguished from all others"
is cranial ; that " the great gulf in intellectual
power which intervenes between the lowest man
and the highest ape " is of little moment, and

' " Man's Place in Nature," p. '^^.

232 Scientific Sophisms.

yet that the organ which indicates that gulf is
his " nobler and more characteristic organ ; —
some readers should relegate it to that category
in which he himself has placed a dictum of
Prof. Owen's, characterizing it as a **qu4-qu4-
versal proposition . . . which may be read
backwards, forwards, or sideways, with exactly
the same amount of signification." ^

8. But " qu4-qu4 versal " as it is, it does not
stand alone. For after we have learned that
even when regarded on the lowest grounds, " the
pelvis, or bony girdle of the hips, of man is a
strikingly human part of his organization," and
that his Brain is strikingly human in a much
higher degree, since it is his Brain, and not his
pelvis, which is "to furnish an explanation of
the great gulf which intervenes between the
lowest man and the highest ape in intellectual
power ; " we are told — as if to neutralize this
concurrent testimony from "structure" and
from "substance," — that "the difference in
weight of brain between the highest and lowest
man is far greater, both relatively and abso-
lutely, than that between the lowest man and
the highest ape." And, in a word, " whatever
system of organs be studied, the comparison of
their modifications in the ape series leads to one
* Man's Place in Nature," p. 106.

Men. 233

and the same result — that the structural differ-
ences which separate man from the gorilla and
the chimpanzee, are not so great as those which
separate the gorilla from the lower apes."

9. Even this latest dictum, if it had been
allowed to stand alone, would have been so far
definite as to redeem it from the character of
** qud-qud-versal." But it is not thus allowed.
No sooner has it been submissively accepted ;
no sooner have we brought ourselves with due
docility to admit that " the structural differences
between man and even the highest apes are
small and insignificant," than Prof. Huxley
protests he has been misunderstood. " Let me
take this opportunity then," says he, " of dis-
tinctly asserting, on the contrary, that they
are great and significant ; that every bone of a
Gorilla bears marks by which it might be dis-
tinguished from the corresponding bone of a
man ; and that in the present creation, at any
rate, no intermediate link bridges over the gap
between Homo and Troglodytes" ^

ID. This would be conclusive, if only it were
final. But it is not final. It is neutralized in
the next sentence but one : — " Remember, if you
will, that there is no existing link between man
and the gorilla ; but do not forget that there is a
* " Man's Place in Nature," p. 104.

;:'

234 Scientific Sophisms.

no less sharp line of demarcation, a no less com-
plete absence of any transitional form, between
the gorilla and the orang, or the orang and the
gibbon. I say not less sharp, though it is some-
what narrower." ^

1 1. Can anything be plainer ? Prof. Huxley
anticipates the result "On all sides I shall,
hear the cry — ' We are men and women, not a
mere better sort of apes, a little longer in the legs
more compact in the foot, and bigger in brain
than your brutal chimpanzees and gorillas.
The power of knowledge, the conscience of good
and evil, the pitiful tenderness of human affec-
tions, raise us out of all real fellowship with the
brutes, however closely they may seem to ap-
proximate us.' " And what is his answer to the
objurgation he thus anticipates }

Here it is: — " I have endeavoured to show that
no absolute structural line of demarcation, wider
than that between the animals which im-
mediately succeed us in the scale, can be drawn
between the animal world and ourselves, and I
may add the expression of my belief that the
attempt to draw a psychical distinction is
equally futile, and that even the highest faculties
of feeling and of intellect begin to germinate in
lower forms of life." *

* ". Man's Place in Nature." ' Ibid,^ p. 109.

Men. 235

12. Add to this the further declaration that
" our reverence for the ability of manhood will
hot be lessened by the knowledge that man is, in
substance and in structure, one with the brutes."^
And then contrast with both the words that
follow. First, there is no physical distinction :
"no absolute structural line of demarcation.*'
Second, there is no psychical distinction : for
" the attempt to draw a psychical distinction is
equally futile." And third, " even the highest
faculties of feeling and of intellect begin to
germinate in lower forms of life." And yet, the
very next sentence is in these words : —

13. "At the same time no one is more
strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of
the gulf between civilized man and the brutes :
or is more certain that whether from them or
not, he is assuredly not ^them."*

To harmonize discordant and conflicting as-
sertions like these would be not merely to re-
concile the irreconcilable ; it would be to show
that opposites are identical. Yet until that is
done, what else can we say of them but that
which their author has already said so wittily
of his opponents ? They are merely " qud-qud-
versal propositions . . . which may be

* "Man's Place in Nature,'* p. 112.
' Ibid,y p. 1 la

236 Scientific Sophisms.

read backwards, forwards, or sideways, with
exactly the same amount of signification."

14. We revert then to our first enquiry:
What are the facts? Prof. Huxley's facts are
opposed to his conclusions. When he has
admitted that between the lowest man and the
highest ape there is a general, a particular, and a
wide distinction ; a distinction which has left its
marks on " every bone " ; he then proceeds to
lay great stress on the fact that, between one
family of man and another the difference is
greater than between the lowest man and the
highest ape." ^ But when he has done this, he
proceeds in each case to show that there is a
far greater difference between this same" ape,

^nd the apes of some other remaining class.
But these two statements furnish the import-
ant corollary that "there is the same, or an
analogous kind of distinction between one
family of man and another, and between one
family of ape and another." The idea thus
suggested is subversive of his theory : viz.,
that the families of men are sprung from one
type, and the families of apes from another;
in other words, there is a generic as well as a
specific difference between men and apes."

15. Prof Huxley apart, it is allowed on all

^ " Man's Place in Nature," p. 78.

Men. 237

hands that socially, morally, religiously, and
historically, men and apes are generically dis-
tinct. But this distinction as matter of fact
either involves a generic distinction between
the physiological structure of men and apes, or
it does not. If it does, then Mr. Huxley's
theory is disproved by the fact ; and man is
not " in substance and in structure one with the
brutes." If it does not, then " the cause of this
distinction must be looked for elsewhere, and
science will have to admit that in man there is
an immaterial element which physiology cannot
grasp," an element adequate to his elevation
at a height so immeasurably above the rest of
the animal world.

16. Nor is it to be forgotten that, even by
Prof. Huxley himself, this elevation of man
above the ape is regarded comparatively as
being not merely "immeasurable," but "prac-
tically infinite." " Believing as I do, with
Cuvier," he says, " that the possession of articu-
late speech is the grand distinctive character
of man," ..." the primary cause of the
UNMEASURABLE and practically infinite diver-
gence of the Human from the Simian Stirps." ^

By universal consent then, nothing is more

* " Man's Place in Nature," p. 103 «.
^ Ibid,.^ p. 103 n.

238 Scientific Sophisms.

certain than that Man is chiefly characterized
by those psychical distinctions which in such
treatises as that of Prof. Huxley's now cited, are
either left entirely out of view, or dismissed in
a passing sentence. " Conscience, remorse, am-
bition, sense of responsibility, improvableness
of reason, immense advances in knowledge,
self-cultivation, aesthetical sensibilities — ^these
and other qualities of the Homo sapiens^ not
to speak of religious sentiments, broadly and
plainly distinguish man from all the Simians
and Troglodytes. Grant, for a moment, (what
is manifestly inconsistent with the previous
statement, that 'the structural difierences be-
tween man and the highest apes are great and
signiflcant ') that man is one in substance and
structure with these creatures ; grant even that
their instincts simulate our reason in some
remarkable instances ; and when all is granted,
the vast and varied difierences just intimated
remain as towering distinctions. To these is
added that gift of articulate speech which,
though mechanically organized, imparts su-
preme value to them all ; which makes man a
communicative being ; which gives to a lecturer,
such as Professor Huxley, that power to in-
struct, amuse and illustrate, by which he is raised
immeasurably above the cleverest ape that

Men. 239

ever climbed a tree, or built a nest, or buried
his dead companion under the dried leaves of
an African forest." ^

17. As to the alleged ancestry of Man from
the brutes, this, then, is certain : " that whether
from them or not, he is assuredly not of them."

But is he *^from them"? He who answers
this question in the affirmative affirms what he
cannot even pretend to prove. The evidence*
such as it is, in every particular, and in the most
positive terms, endorses the direct negative of
the proposition which on any theory of Ascen-
sive Development it is found necessary to main-
tain. It is Mr. Darwin himself who tells us of
" the great break in the organic chain between
man and his nearest allies, which cannot be
bridged over by any extinct or living species." *
"The fossil remains of man hitherto discovered,"
says Professor Huxley, " do not seem to take us
appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form"
from which it is conjectured — but only con-
jectured — that he sprang. It is nothing less
than the utter destitution of evidence in support
of the unverified "theoretic conception" that
constrains even Professor Huxley to ask, "Where
then must we look for primaeval man ? "

^ TheAthencBum^ No. 1844, p. 288.
• " The Descent of Man," voL i. p. 200.

240 Scientific Sophisms.

18. "In the first place, it is manifest that
man, the apes, and the half-apes cannot be
arranged in a 3ingle ascending series, of which
man is the term and culmination.

** We may indeed, by selecting one organ or
one set of parts, and confining our attention
to it, arrange the different forms in a more or
less simple manner. But if all the organs be
taken into account, the cross relations and inter-
dependencies become in the highest degree com-
plex and difficult to unravel." ^ This indeed is
generally admitted, but still the theory pro-
pounded by Mr. Darwin, and widely accepted,
is that "the resemblances between man and
apes are such that man fnay be conceived to
have descended from some ancient members of
the broad-breastboned group of apes," and of
all existing apes, the gorilla is regarded as
standing towards him in closer relationship
than any other.

But what evidence of common origin is
afforded by community of structure? "The
human structural characters are shared by so
many and such diverse forms, that it is impos-
sible to arrange even groups of genera in a
single ascending series from the aye-aye to man

1 "Lessons from Nature," p. 174. By Pro£ Mivart
(Murray, 1876.)

Men. 241

(to say nothing of so arranging the several
single genera), if all the structural resemblances
are taken into account.

" If the number of wrist-bones be deemed
a special mark of affinity between the gorilla,
chimpanzee, and man, why are we not to con-
sider it also a special mark of affinity between
the indris and man ? That it should be so con-
sidered, however, would be deemed an absurdity
by every evolutionist.

" If the proportions of the arms speak in
favour of the chimpanzee, why do not the
proportions of the legs serve to promote the
rank of the gibbons ?

" If the obUquely-ridged teeth of Simia and
Troglodytes point to community of origin, how
can we deny a similar community of origin, as
thus estimated, to the howling monkeys and
galagos ?

"The liver of the gibbons proclaims them
almost human ; that of the gorilla declares him
comparatively brutal.

" The ear-lobule of the gorilla makes him our
cousin ; but his tongue is eloquent in his own
dispraise.

" The slender loris from amidst the half-apes,
can put in many a claim to be our shadow
refracted, as it were, through a lemurine prism.

242 Scientific Sophisms,

" The lower American apes meet us with what
seems 'the front of Jove himself/ compared
with the gigantic, but low-browed denizens of
tropical Western Africa.

" In fact, in the words of the illustrious Dutch
naturalists, Messrs. Schroeder, Van der Kolk,
and Vrolik, the lines of affinity existing between
different Primates construct rather a network
than a ladder.

" It is indeed a tangled web, the meshes of
which no naturalist has as yet unravelled by
the aid of natural selection. Nay, more, these
complex affinities form such a net for the use of
the teleological retiarius as it would be difficult
for his Lucretian antagonist to evade, even with
the countless turns and doublings of Darwinian
evolutions." ^

And yet we are told by Professor Tyndall *
that the naturalist whose mind is " most deeply
stored with the choicest materials of the tele-
ologist," rejects teleology. Does he then effect
his escape from the reticulations of the complex
affinities now specified ? By no means. But
he refers the spontaneous and independent
appearance of these similar structures to
" atavism," and " reversion ; " to the appearance

* Professor Mivart, «/ sup., pp. 174, 175.
2 « Belfast Address."

Men. 243

that is, in modern descendants, of ancient and
sometimes long-lost structural characters, which
are supposed to have formerly existed in
ancestors more or less remote, and wholly
hypothetical.

But if this were true : " if man and the orang
are diverging descendants of a creature with
certain cerebral characters, then that remote
ancestor must also have had the wrist of the
chimpanzee, the voice of a long-armed ape, the
blade-bone of the gorilla, the chin of the siam-
ang, the skull-dome of an American ape, the
ischium of a slender loris, the whiskers and
beard of a saki, the liver and stomach of the
gibbons, and the number of other characters
in which the various several forms of higher
or lower Primates respectively approximate to
man.

" But to assert this is as much as to say that
low down in the scale of Primates was an an-
cestral form so like man that it might well be
called an homunculus ; and we have the virtual
pre-existence of man's body supposed, in. order
to account for the actual first appearance of
that body as we know it : — a supposition mani-
festly absurd if put forward as an explanation." ^

19. Nor is it an insignificant circumstance,
> ** Lessons from Nature," p. 176.

244 Scientific Sophisms.

as indicating the wholly hypothetical character
of the ape ancestry thus assigned to man, that
neither on the earth nor under the earth is any
trace of such an ancestry discoverable. The
number is not small of those who prefer to
search the record of the rocks for " Vestiges "
of Creation rather than for Footprints of the
Creator ; but no vestige of man's ascent from
the ape is yet producible. In default therefore
of evidence adducible from that which is, we
are liberally supplied with asseverations as to
that which might, or " must have been."

There must, for example, have been " a series
of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-
like creature to man as he now exists." ^ Now
of the series thus alleged, every single member
was ex hypothesi superior to the lower forms
from which he sprang. And Mr. Darwin's
doctrine affirms "the survival of the fittesL**
But while the half-apes are with us to this day
the half-men are nowhere. The ape-mothers
that found themselves, in the last term of the
series, strangely producing men, have perished ;
while the monkeys, unequal to the production
even of apes, have survived. According to the
hypothesis the fittest should survive ; according
to the facts the fittest have perished.

1 ** Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 235.

Men, 245

But this is not all. Besides this imaginary
"series of forms," the theory requires further
a process of " graduating insensibly." And of
this process there is not only no proof, but the
evidence, such as it is, points in the direction
of disproof. It is Mr. Darwin himself who says,
" Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp, and defined,
others less so in various degrees ; as between
the orang and its nearest allies — between the
Tarsius and the other Lemuridae." The " intel-
lectual figment " is in evil case when it postu-
lates a process of graduation so gradual as to
be imperceptible, yet so abrupt as to exhibit
*' breaks " which '* incessantly occur in all parts
of the series," not excluding even "breaks"
which are "wide, sharp, and defined." And
yet, across these " breaks," Mr. Darwin's theory,
by Mr. Darwin's ingenuity, is made to swing its
ponderous bulk with an adroit dexterity that
might have been envied, in the depths of his
African forest, by the ancestral Gorilla him-
self : —

"All these breaks depend merely on the

number of related forms that have become

extinct." ^ Could anything be more simple }

The " breaks " are there indeed : but they are

> " Descent of Man," vol. i. pp. 200, 201.

246 Scientific Sophisms.

there only in the absence of the " related forms "
"graduating insensibly." You have only to
imagine the " forms " and the " breaks " will
disappear.

And yet, of these same " forms " it is all the
while most certain that they cannot be de-
scribed ; they are not known to have existed ;
they are not known to have been "related
they are not known to " have become extinct.
Nor are the "breaks" more real. They are
breaks only on the assumption of the hypo-
thesis : not otherwise. And the second as-
sumption has no power to confer validity on
the first.

20. From this tissue of assumptions we revert
to the facts. No less a writer than Mr. Wallace,
** the independent originator and by far the best
expounder of the theory of Natural Selection,"
differs toto coelo from Mr. Darwin on the question
of the Origin of Man. For the creation of man,
as he is, Mr. Wallace postulates the necessity
of the intervention of an external Will. He
observes that even the lowest types of savages
are in possession of capacities far beyond any
use to which they can apply them in their
present condition, and therefore they could not
have been evolved from the mere necessities

Men. 247

of their environment. These capacities have
respect to future possibilities of culture. But
prolepsis, anticipation, involves intention and
a will.

He contends further,^ — that even as to his
body, Man is a clear and palpable and positive
exception to the theory of Evolution. To
produce the human frame required, he says,
the intervention of some special agency. He
adverts to the peculiar disposition of the hair
on man, especially that nakedness of the back
which is common to all races of men, and to
the peculiar construction of the hand and foot.
" The hand of man," he tells us, " contains latent
capacities and powers which are unused by
savages, and must have been even less used by
palaeolithic man and his still ruder predecessors.
It has all the appearance of an organ prepared
for the use of civilized man, and one which
was required to render civilization possible."

Again : speaking of the " wonderful power,
range, flexibility, and sweetness of the musical
sounds producible by the human larynx," he
adds, " the habits of savages give no indication
of how this faculty could have been developed."
. . . " The singing of savages is a more
or less monotonous howling, and the females
> " Natural Selection," pp. 332-360.

248 Scientific Sophisms.

seldom sing at all." " It seems as if the organ
had been prepared in anticipation of the future
progress of man, since it contains latent capa-
cities which are useless to him in his earlier
condition/' ^

Mr. Wallace is in perfect agreement also with
christian theism in the value he attaches to
man's "capacity to form ideal conceptions of
space and time, of eternity and infinity — the
capacity for intense artistic feelings of pleasure,
in form, colour, and composition — and those
abstract notions of form and number which
render geometry possible," as well as with
respect to the non-bestial origin of moral per-
ception." ^

And beyond all this, he considers Man as not
only placed " apart, as the head and culminating
point of the grand series of organic nature, but
as in some degree a new and distinct order of
being." . • . "When the first rude spear
was formed to assist in the chase; when fire
was first used to cook his food ; when the first

* On this subject, indeed, even Mr. Darwin himself
admits that " neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of
producing musical notes are faculties of the least direct
use to man in reference to his ordinary habits of life ;
they must be ranked amongst the most mysterious with
which he is endowed." — Descent of Man ^ vol. ii. p. 333.

^ "Natural Selection," pp. 351, 352.

Men. 249

seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revo-
lution was effected in nature, a revolution which
in all the previous ages of the earth's history-
has had no parallel, for a being had arisen who
was no longer necessarily subject to change with
the changing universe, a being who was in some
degree superior to nature, inasmuch as he knew
how to control and regulate her action, and
could keep himself in harmony with her, not by
a change in body, but by an advance in mind."

Against facts like these, of what avail are
Mr. Darwin's ingenious speculations } The
answer may be given in the words of Professor
Mivart. It is the same high authority that
pronounced Mr. Darwin's " Origin of Species "
to be "a puerile hypothesis," and its distinc-
tive characteristic, "a conception utterly irra-
tional; "^ who now adds,

"Thus, then, in our judgment the author of
the 'Descent of Man' has UTTERLY failed
in the only part of his work which is really
important : . . . and if Mr. Darwin's failure
should lead to an increase of philosophic culture
on the part of physicists, we may therein find
some consolation for the injurious effects which
his work is likely to produce on too many of
our half-educated classes." ^

> " Lessons from Nature," p. 300. ^ Ibid,^ p. 184.

250 Scientific Sophisms.

Nor is this all. Man is something more than
an intellectual animal. He is a free moral
agent : and, as such, — and with the infinite
future which that freedom opens out before him
— he differs from all the rest of the visible
universe by " a distinction so profound that no
one of those which separate other visible beings
is comparable with it. The gulf which lies
between his being as a whole, and that of the
highest brute, marks off vastly more than a
mere kingdom of material beings, and man, so
considered, differs far more from an elephant
or a gorilla than do these from the dust of the
earth on which they tread." ^

* " Lessons from Nature," p. 184.

CHAPTER XIII

ANIMA MUNDI.

ayi

" En apercevant par la pens^e des rapports in finis dans
toutes les choses, je soupgonne un Ouvrier infiniment
habile." — Voltaire (Lettre ct Diderot),

" One hand has surely worked through the universe." —
Mr, Darwin,

" The essence of our being, the mystery in us that calls
itself * 1/ — ah, what words have we for such things ? — is
a breath of Heaven ; the Highest Being reveals Himself
in man. This body, these faculties, this life of ours, is
it not all as a vesture for that Unnamed ?"— Carlyle,

" The immeasurable fount
Ebullient with creative Deity !" — Coleridge,

25i

CHAPTER XIII.

ANIMA MUNDL

" There lives and works
A Soul in all things : and that Soul is God."

— Cowper.

This witness is true : and its truth is not im-
paired by the ignorant positiveness of Agnosti-
cism, or by the positive ignorance of Atheism.
As to Atheism, indeed, the verdict already pro-
nounced, after a most minute and searching
investigation, is found to be unalterable: —
"Every part of the universe is an argument
against atheism as a theory thereof."^ Ag-
nosticism, despite its pretensions to Knowledge,
as its very name imports, is a mere confession
of Ignorance. And even that ignorance, con-
fronted by the facts of the universe, ceases to
be possible when its votaries are willing to cease
to be *' willingly ignorant."

Is there, or is there not, "a Soul in all

* Theodore Parker ; Theism^ Atheism, and the Popular
Theology, p. lo.

253

254 Scientific Sophisms.

things?" Theism affirms. Atheism denies.
Agnosticism ignores, the existence of any such
Soul. To put an end to controversy the appeal
is made to facts. Is the affirmation of Theism
unsustained by evidence? Is the negation of
Atheism consistent with the admissions which
Atheism itself has been compelled to make?
Is the ignorance of Agnosticism compatible
with the knowledge to which Agnosticism
makes such arrogant pretensions ?

I. "In all things." Let us begin at the be-
ginning. It is in the phenomena of crystalliza-
tion that Professor Tyndall finds the foundation
of all higher phenomena — life, growth, repro-
duction, intelligence, will He believes "that
the formation of a crystal, a plant, or an animal,
is a purely mechanical problem, which differs
from the problems of ordinary mechanics in the
smallness of the masses and the complexity
of the process involved." ^

Take now the least complex of the three
instances of constructive power here mentioned,
— that of crystallization. " The human mind,"
says the Professor, " is as little disposed to look
unquestioning at these pyramidal salt crystals

* " Fragments of Science,'' p. 119.

Amma Munat, 255

as to look at the pyramids of Egypt without
enquiring whence they came.

" How then are those salt pyramids built up ? Guided
by analogy, you may, if you like, suppose that, swarming
among the constituent molecules of the salt, there is an
invisible population, controlled and coerced by some
invisible master, and placing the atomic blocks in their
position. This however is not the scientific idea, nor do
I think your good sense would accept it as a likely one.
The scientific idea is, that the molecules act upon each
other without the intervention of slave labour ; that they
attract each other and repel each other at certain definite
points or poles, and in certain definite directions, and
that the pyramidal form is the result of this play of at-
traction and repulsion. While then the blocks of Egypt
were laid down by a power external to themselves, these
molecular blocks of salt are self-posited, being fixed in
their places by the forces with which they act upon each
other." »

On this very pertinent analogy it is to be
remarked that Professor Tyndall has specified
only the points on which it holds good ; and
here his opponents are in perfect accord with
himself. The only point in respect of which
they differ from him is that which he has
omitted to notice ; and in that point the ana-
logy entirely fails.

When, for the slave-labour employed in the
construction of the pyramids, we have sub-

1 a

Fragments of Science," pp. 114, 115.

256 Scientific Sophisms.

stituted the mutual attractions and repulsions
which determine the position of the minute
blocks employed in the construction of a crystal,
we have dealt with only one element of the
problem. That slave-labour was employed not
otherwise than as the consequent of antecedent
design. The huge blocks of granite or of
limestone were not deposited in their relative
positions except as those positions had been
antecedently determined "by some invisible
master ; " — the architect who planned ; the
monarch who ordained and controlled. And
when we have said that the infinitesimally
minute molecular blocks in a crystal of salt
or of sugar are " self-posited," we have indeed
dispensed with the necessity of external physical
force necessary to simple super-position ; but
we have made no advance whatever towards a
substitute for that Intellectual Force which is
(at least) equally necessary in order to sym-
metrical super-position. We have dispensed
with "the intervention of slave-labour." We
have not dispensed with the intervention of the
Will by which that labour was employed, or
the Intelligence by which it was directed, or the
Power by which it was controlled. We have
dismissed the slaves only. The "Invisible
Master " still remains behind.

Anima Mundu 257

2. With regard to the pyramids of Egypt all
are agreed. Who planned them ?

" Was Cheops or Cephrenes architect

Of either Pyramid that bears his name ? ''

By what agencies were they erected? With
what object were they designed ? These ques-
tions Professor Tyndall regards — and rightly
regards — as at once instinctive and inevitable.
But when these same questions are put with
regard to the "pyramidal salt crystals," whose
exquisite finish transcends all architectural
composition, the only answer is, that the ques-
tions are all at once and altogether out of
place.

And yet it is Professor Tyndall who tells us
that the very same constitution of mind which
compels us to question the pyramids compels
us also to question the crystals. Only, the
three questions which were inevitable in the
former case must, in the latter, be reduced to
one. "Who planned?" and "With what ob-
ject?" are questions inseparable from intelli-
gence in the one case. But in the other, we are
told that these are questions with which intelli-
gence has nothing to do. " The scientific idea "
is limited exclusively to the one remaining
question — the question least interesting and

258 Scientific Sophisms.

least important of the three — What forces, and
what laws operated in their construction ?

That the final form of the pyramid expresses
the thought of the " invisible master," whether
Cheops or Cephrenes, is, on all hands, admitted.
How then can it be denied — as it is denied —
that the crystal expresses the thought of any
intelligence whatever ?

3. But, in the crystal, "the molecular blocks
are ^^^posited." And, in like manner, the
valves of a steam-engine are said to be ^^self-
adjusting." But the self-adjustment of the
valves, like the self-positing of the molecules,
must ultimately be referred to Mind. Except
as the result of the operations of a designing
mind, there are no valves " self-adjusting," and
no molecular blocks "self-posited."

Are we asked to dispense with Mind, because
"the agencies by which the crystals are built,
are incomparably superior to the agencies em-
ployed in the building of the pyramids " ? To
take this ground is to assume that the more
exquisite the agency employed, the less mani-
fest, or the less certain, are the evidences of
the operation of mind : — an assumption directly
contrary to the fact

4. The human mind, as Professor Tyndall
himself describes it, refuses to rest satisfied with

Anima Mundu 259

a reference to " the play of atoms and molecules
under the operation of laws." The obvious
question instinctively recurs : — How come these
atoms and molecules to act with preconcerted
harmony, and " like disciplined squadrons under
a governing eye, arranging themselves into bat-
talions, gathering round distinct centres, and
forming themselves into solid masses,"^ move
with unerring precision towards a predetermined
goal? This is the question which, not in
consequence of its experience but in virtue of
its constitution, the human mind is compelled
to ask. To answer it by referring to laws self-
constituted, or atoms self-posited, or molecules
self-adjusted, is to leave untouched the very
thing to be accounted for. What the mind
demands a reason for is, the exquisite adjust-
ment here alleged : " and this reason is not
rendered by referring the inquirer to the opera-
tion of laws ; for, apart from and outside of
matter, there are no such entities in existence
as the laws of matter. The laAvs of matter are
simply the mode, in which matter in virtue of
its constitution, acts. Oxygen unites chemically
with hydrogen, in certain proportions, under
certain conditions, simply because of the quali-
ties or attributes wherewith these two gases are
^ " Fragments of Science," p. 448.

26o Scientific Sophisms.

invested. // is not the law which determines
the combinationy but the qualities which deter^
mine the law. These elements act as they act,
simply because they are what they are." ^ How
then came they to be what they are.? These
"myriad types of the same letter"; these un-
hewn blocks from an unknown quarry; more
indestructible than adamant ; the substratum
of all the phenomena of the universe ; and yet,
amid the wreck of all things else, this infinitude
of discrete atoms alone is found incapable of
change or of decay. Who preserves to them
their absolute identity, notwithstanding their
infinite variety.? Who endowed them with
their inalienable properties? Who impressed
upon them the ineffaceable characters which
they are found to bear.? At what mint were
they struck, on what anvil were they forged,
in what loom were they woven, so as to possess
"all the characteristics of manufactured articles"?
5. Whatever then may be said about "the
formation of" "a plant, or an animal," it is
certain that the formation of an Atom — and
consequently of a crystal — is precisely the op-
posite of that alleged by Professor Tyndall : — it
is not "a purely mechanical problem." "Manu-

1 " Atomism." By Prof. Watts. Belfast : Mullan,
1874, p. 15.

Anima Mundi. 261

factured articles" may, or may not, be pro-
duced by machines ; but machines are a product
of Mind. And where there is no Mind, there
are no " manufactured articles."

6. Between the curiosities of crystallography
and the mysteries of life there yawns a gulf
measurable only by the whole diameter of
being. It is even Haeckel himself who admits
that " The phenomena which living things pre-
sent have no parallel in the mineral world." ^
And yet Professor Tyndall puts the properties
of minerals, of mammoths, and of men, into one
and the same category ; tells us that however
strikingly they may be differentiated by specific
characters, yet, in every case, this difference is
one not of kind, but merely of degree ; and that
" the formation " of a man, or an oak, equally
with that of a snowflake, is nothing more than
"a purely mechanical problem, which differs
from the problems of ordinary mechanics"
— not by the introduction of a new element,
not by the mysterious origination of vital or
mental force, — but only by "the smallness of
the masses and the complexity of the process
involved."

Now this assertion is not only unsupported by
evidence : the evidence completely disproves it.
* " History of Creation," vol. i. p. 681.

262 Scientific Sophisms.

The points involved in it are two : — First, the
introduction of Life. Second, the manifesta-
tions of Mind. As to the former of these.
Professor Huxley himself declares that —

7. " The present state of knowledge furnishes
us with no link between the living and the not-
living."^ Professor Haeckel admits that there
is nothing in chemistry that can produce life.
That chemistry cannot bridge the colossal
chasm between the living and the not-living.
That it cannot explain how inorganic is trans-
muted into organic matter. That "most na-
turalists, even at the present day, are inclined
to give up the attempt at natural explanation
*of the origin of life,' and to take refuge in
the miracle of inconceivable creation." ^ In the
words of one of them, " We have given up the
idea that we can make things grow." Or, to
take but one instance more, — the final sentence
of Du Bois Reymond, — " It is futile to attempt
by chemistry to bridge the chasm between the
living and the not-living."

8. Futile as is the attempt however, Professor
Huxley has shown himself equal to it. In his
most deliberate utterance he tells us that —

' Encycl. Brit., Art. " Biology."

^ " History of Creation,'* vol. i. p. 327.

Anima Mundi. 263

" A mass of living protoplasm is simply a molecular
machine of great complexity, the total results of the
working of which, or its vital phenomena, depend, on the
one hand, on its construction, and on the other, upon the
energy supplied to it ; and to speak of * vitality ' as any-
thing but the name of a series of operations, is as if one
should talk of the horologity of a clock." *

This oracular deliverance is worthy of the
most careful consideration, not less from its own
merits than from the celebrity of its author.
From it we learn that a " living " thing is " a
machine ; " " simply " a machine. " The results
of the working of" this machine — Milton's
" Paradise Lost," for example ; or Shakspere's
Plays ; Galileo and Kepler, Newton and Pciscal,
Socrates and Savonarola, Stephenson and
Edison, Turner and Ruskin, — " the total
results" — are due to two sources. The first
of these is " its construction ; " the second, is
" the energy supplied to it."

Since, however, to our instructor not less than
to ourselves, the " construction " of " a mass of
living protoplasm " is an unfathomable secret,
of which, notwithstanding his high attainments,
even he is profoundly ignorant ; and since " the
energy supplied to it" remains now, as ever,
an absolutely unknown quantity ; it might

^ Prof. Huxley, Encyc. Brit., Art. " Biology," 1875.

264 Scientific Sophisms.

perhaps have been more candid, as it would
certainly have been less misleading, if it had
been said at once, and without ambiguous
circumlocution, that "its vital phenomena
depend" on something of which nothing is
known.

It is Prof. Huxley himself who tells us that
the " lifeless compounds " carbonic acid, water,
and ammonia, cannot combine — cannot, by any
wit of man, be combined — so as to *' give rise
to the still more complex body, protoplasm,"
unless a principle of life presides over the opera-
tion. Unless under those auspices the com-
bination never takes place. But when we ask.
What is that principle of life ? What is that
presiding Power } We are told that there is no
such thing ; that " vitality " has no more real
existence than " horologity ; " and that we
might as well speak of a " steam-engine prin-
ciple," a "watch-principle," or a "railroad-
principle," as of a "vital principle,^' or vital
force.

And yet, not even the scathing sarcasm of
which Prof. Huxley is a master, can avail to
conceal the fact that the analogies thus sug-
gested fail in every particular. The power of a
steam-engine is in no degree dependent on its
connection with some antecedent steam-engine.

Anima Mundi. 265

The perfection of a watch is not derived by
contact from some other watch. But the per-
fection of vital movement, and the power of
vital force are derived by contact, are depend-
ent on connection with other, and pre-existing
living bodies. Mr. Huxley tells us of something
which he finds it convenient to call by the name
of "subtle influences." And these "subtle
influences," he says, " will convert the dead pro-
toplasm into the living protoplasm;" will "raise
the complex substance of dead protoplasm to
the higher power, as one may say, of living
protoplasm."* What are these "subtle in-
fluences } " What else are they but vital
force }

It is easy to talk of a living body as " a mole-
cular machine," and to attribute " vital pheno-
mena " to its " construction." But what of The
Constructor? It is easy to talk of "lifeless
compounds " as the " constituents " of a living
body. But then these lifeless compounds are
"constituents" that do not constitute. They
do not even constitute " The Physical Basis of
Life." Still less do they constitute the energy
of Life itself. " Let the matter be disguised or
slurred over as it may, the fact remains that we
are utterly unable to imitate vital affinity so far
* Fortnightly Review for 1869, p. 138.

266 Scientific Sophisms.

as to make a bit of material ready for its use,
or even to make any definite substance that
would have similar chemical relations." ^

Let it however be supposed, that Prof. Hux-
ley's vaticination has been realized. Let it
be assumed that some day *'by the advance
of molecular physics " the learned Professor will
be able to show us how it is that the properties
peculiar to water have resulted from the pro-
perties peculiar to the gases whose junction
constitutes water; and similarly, how the
characteristic properties of protoplasm have
sprung from properties in the water, ammonia,
and carbonic acid that have united to form
protoplasm ; even then, knowing all this, we
should be as far as ever from the more recon-
dite knowledge up to which it is expected to
lead. For this knowledge leaves us as ignorant
as before concerning that ** supplied energy" of
Life, without which no protoplasm is ever
formed. " To extract the genesis of life from
any data that completest acquaintance with the
stages and processes of protoplasmic growth
can furnish, is a truly hopeless problem. Given
the plan of a house, with samples of its brick
and mortar, to find the name and nationality
of the householder, would be child's play in
^ Dr. Elam, "Automatism and Evolution."

Anima Mundi. 267

comparison. Life, as we have seen,^ is not the
offspring of protoplasm, but something which
has been superinduced upon, and may be separ-
ated from the protoplasm that serves as its
material basis. It is therefore distinct from the
matter which it animates, and, being thus im-
material, cannot possibly become better known
by any analysis of matter." ^

9. " In every living thing there are physico-
chemical actions^ which also occur out of the
body, and vital actions. These last, however,
are peculiar to living beings^ and cannot be
imitated. In galvanic batteries, and in other
arrangements made by man, we may have phy-
sico-chemical actions, but never anything at all
like vital actions^ The physicist "seems to
think that pabulum goes into a living thing and
becomes changed chemically, just as it may be
changed in his laboratory, and the results of
this change are work, and certain compounds
which are got rid of. In all this, the living
matter which is absolutely essential in every
one of these changes — without which not one of
them could occur, or even be conceived as occur-
ring in thought, is persistently ignored." " But
although the new schools hold it absurd to

* Vide ante^^i^. 119, 120.

- Thornton, " Old Fashioned Ethics," pp. 168 et seq.

268 Scientific Sophisms.

suppose that any peculiar power acting from
within or from without can influence the
changes in matter, or direct its forces, they
see no impropriety in attributing to matter
itself, and to force, guiding, and directing,
and forming agencies." They transfer to
the non-living those active, controlling, and
directing powers which have hitherto been re-
garded as the attributes of life alone. Accord-
ing to them, it is not "will," or "mind," or
even " vital force " — it is merely " the inorganic
molecule " — that arranges, governs, guides, con-
trols.

Thus, for example. Prof. Huxley has affirmed
that a "particle of jelly "^/^j forces. To his
mind, he tells us, it is a fact of the profoundest
significance that "this particle of jelly is capable
of guiding physical forces in such a manner
as to give rise to those exquisite and almost
mathematically arranged structures," etc. ^ It
is not easy to see, however, why the idea of
physical forces being guided by a particle of
jelly should be accepted as a fact of "profound
significance," while the idea of " vitality " acting
upon the particles of this jelly, and guiding
them and their forces, should be denounced as
a fiction, absurd, ridiculous, frivolous, fanciful.
^ Introduction to the Classification of Animals.

Aninta Mundi. 269

Besides : that physical forces guide matter, is a
doctrine neither new nor strange ; but here we
have the doctrine that matter guides physical
forces — a doctrine not less strange than new.
" But is it not more probable that neither matter
nor force is capable of guiding or directing force
or matter ? Matter may be said to rule and
guide itself, but it can hardly be ruled and
guided by itself. It might, however, be ruled
and guided by something else.

"Concerning the dictum about jelly guiding
physical forces, I shall, therefore, venture to
remark — i. That living matter is not jelly ;
2. That neither jelly nor matter is capable of
guiding or directing forces of any kind ; and 3.
That the capacity of jelly to guide forces, which
Prof. Huxley says is a fact of the profoundest
significance to him, is not a fact at all, but
merely an assertion." ^

10. " If a machine that moved itself could, of
itself, divide into new machines, and each take
up particles of brass and iron and steel, or
other substances entering into its construction,
and deposit these in the proper places, so that
the several wheels and other elementary parts
of the mechanism should grow evenly and
regularly, and continue to work while all these
> Dr. Beale's " Protoplasm," pp. 74, 75, ^^y 8k

270 Scientific Sophisms.

changes were proceeding, — such a machine, it
is true, would in some particulars be like a
living organism.'* But how stands the fact ?
" If any apparatus we could contrive developed
all possible modes of force — motion, heat, light,
electricity, magnetism, chemical action, and any
number of others yet to be discovered — that
apparatus would still present ^w approach what-
ever to any organism known. Of course such
a thing might be calUd an organism, just as a
watch, or a steam-engine, or water, or anything
else, may be called a creature, — a worm or any
other living thing called a machine. But every
living machine seems to grow of itself, builds
itself up, and multiplies, while every non-living
machine that has yet been discovered is made.
It neither grows^ nor can it produce machines
like itself r " Will mechanics account for the
movements of an amoeba ? Where is the being
that grows by mechanics, and where is the
mechanical apparatus that can be said to grow }
Has mechanics taught us the difference between
a living seed and the same seed when it has
ceased to live.^" ^

1 1. To revert, for a moment, from " vitality **
to " horologity." When Mr. Lewes — a writer
distinguished for his opposition to what he
^ Dr. Beale, " Protoplasm," pp. 47, 486.

Anima Mundu 271

calls Theological explanations in Science — tells
us that we may just as well speak of a watch
as the abode of a "watch-force," as speak
of the organization of an animal as the abode
of a "vital Force," ^ he is guilty of an over-
sight common to all those who share his views.
It is quite true that the Forces by which a
watch moves are natural Forces. But it is the
relation of interdependence in which these
Forces are placed to each other, or, in other
words, the adjustment of them to a particu-
lar Purpose, which constitutes the "watch-
force;" and the seat of this Force — ^which is
in fact no one Force but a combination of
many Forces — is in the Intelligence which
conceived that combination^ and in the Will
which gave it effect,

" The mechanisms devised by Man are in this respect
only an image of the more perfect mechanism of Nature,
in which the same principle of Adjustment is always the
highest result which Science can ascertain or recognise.
There is this difference, indeed, — ^that in regard to our
works we see that our knowledge of natural laws is very
imperfect, and our control over them is very feeble ;
whereas in the machinery of Nature there is evidence of
complete knowledge and of absolute control. The uni-
versal rule is, that everything is brought about by way of
Natural Consequence. But another rule is, that aU natural

* Lewes's " Philosophy of Aristotle," p. 37.

272 Scientific Sophisms.

consequences meet and fit into each other in endless
circles of Harmony and of Purpose. And this can only
be explained by the fact that what we call Natural Con-
sequence is always the conjoint effect of an infinite num-
ber of elementary Forces, whose action and reaction are
under direction of the Will which we see obeyed, and of
the Purposes which we see actually attained/' *

12. The relation which an organic structure
bears to its purpose in Nature is not less capable
of certain recognition than the same relation
between a machine and its purpose in human
art. '* It is absurd to maintain, for example,
that the purpose of the cellular arrangement of
material in combining lightness with strength,
is a purpose legitimately cognisable by Science
in the Menai Bridge, but is not as legitimately
cognisable when it is seen in Nature, actually
serving the same use. The little Barnacles
which crust the rocks at low tide, and which
to live there at all must be able to resist the
surf, have the building of their shells con-
structed strictly with reference to this necessity.
It is a structure all hollowed and chambered on
the plan which engineers have so lately dis-
covered as an arrangement of material by which
the power of resisting strain or pressure is mul-
tiplied in an extraordinary degree. That shell

» The Duke of Argyll's " Reign of Law " (Sixth
Edition^, pp. 124 et seq.

Anima Mundi. 273

is as pure a bit of mechanics as the bridge ;
both being structures in which the same ar-
rangement is adapted to the same end." ^

" Small, but a work divine ;
Frail, but of force to withstand,
Year upon year, the shock
Of cataract seas that snap
The three-decker's oaken spine." ^

This is but one instance out of a number that
no man can count.

The Electric Ray, or Torpedo, has been pro-
vided with a Battery which, while it closely
resembles, yet in the beauty and compactness
of its structure, it greatly exceeds the Batteries
by which Man has now learned to make the
laws of Electricity subservient to his will. In
this Battery there are no less than 940 hexa-
gonal columns, like those of a bees' comb, and
each of these is subdivided by a series of
horizontal plates, which appear to be analogous
to the plates of the Voltaic Pile. The whole is
supplied with an enormous amount of nervous
matter, four great branches of which are as large
as the animal's spinal cord, and these spread
out in a multitude of thread-like filaments round
the prismatic columns, and finally pass into all

* " The Reign of Law," pp. 99, 100.
2 " Maud."

2 74 Scientific Sophisms.

the cells. ^ " ^ complete knowledge of all the
mysteries which have been gradually unfolded
from the days of Galvani to those of Faraday^
and of many others which are still inscrutable to
us^ is exhibited in this structure'*

Well may Mr. Darwin say, " It is impossible
to conceive by what steps these wondrous
organs have been produced."^ "We see the
Purpose — that a special apparatus should be
prepared, and we see that it is effected by
the production of the machine required : but
we have not the remotest notion of the means
employed. Yet we can see so much as this,
that here again, other laws, belonging altogether
to another department of Nature — laws of
organic growth — are made subservient to a very
definite and very peculiar Purpose." The laws
appealed to in the accomplishment of this pur-
pose are at once numerous and highly compli-
cated. They are so because the conditions to
be satisfied refer not merely to the generation
of Electric force in the animal to which it is
given, but to its effect on the nervous system of
the animals against which it is to be employed,
and also to the conducting medium in which

^ Prof. Owen's "Lectures on Comparative Anatomy,"
vol. ii. (Fishes).
^ " Origin of Species." First Edition, p. 192.

Anima Mundi. 275

both are moving. But the fact that these con-
ditions exist, and must be satisfied, is not the
ultimate fact, it is not even the main fact which
Science apprehends in such phenomena as these.
That which is most observable and most certain,
is the manner in which these conditions are
met. But this, in other words, is simply the
subordination of many laws to a difficult and
curious Purpose; a Purpose none the less
obvious, and a subordination not the less re-
markable, because effected through the instru-
mentality of mechanical contrivance.

" The new-bom Kangaroo," says Professor Owen, " is
an inch in length, naked, blind, with very rudimental limbs
and tail : in one which I examined the morning after the
birth, I could discern no act of sucking : it hung, like a
germ, from the end of the long nipple, and seemed unable
to draw sustenance therefrom by its own efforts. The
mother accordingly is provided with a peculiar adapta-
tion of a muscle (cremaster) to the mammary gland, by
which she can inject the milk from the nipple into the
mouth of the pendulous embryo. Were the larynx of the
little creature like that of the parent, the milk might,
probably would, enter the windpipe and cause suffocation :
but the foetal larynx is cone-shaped, with the opening at
the apex, which projects, as in the whale-tribe, into the
back aperture of the nostrils, where it is closely embraced
by the muscles of the ' soft palate.' The air-passage is
thus completely separated from the fauces, and the in-
jected milk passes in a divided stream, on either side the
base of the larynx, into the oesophagus. These correlated

276 Scientific Sophisms.

modifications of maternal and foetal structures, designed
with especial reference to the peculiar conditions of both
mother and offspring, afford, as it seems to me, irrefra-
gable evidence of Creative foresight, ^^ ^

"The parts of this apparatus cannot have produced
one another ; one part is in the mother, another part in
the young one ; without their harmony they could not be
effective ; but nothing except design can operate to make
them harmonious. They are intended to work together ;
and we cannot resist the conviction of this intention
when the facts first come before us." ^

13. "A prospect-glass or a forceps is an
instrument; they have each a final cause; that
IS, they were each made and adjusted for a
certain use. The use of the prospect-glass is to
assist the eye ; the use of the forceps is to assist
the hand. The prospect-glass was made the
better to see ; the forceps, the better to grasp.
The use did not make these instruments ; they
were each made for the use — which use was
foreseen and premeditated in the mind of the
maker of them. We say of each of them
without a shadow of hesitation : If THIS HAD

NOT FIRST BEEN A THOUGHT, IT COULD NEVER

HAVE BEEN A THING. Now, is the Eye or the
Hand an instrument adjusted to a certain use,
and thus revealing an antecedent purpose in

* Philosophical Transactions y 1834, Reade Lecture ^ p^
29.

* PhiL Inductive Sciences^ vol. i. p. 625.

Anima Mundi. 277

the Creative Mind, or is it not? Can we ac-
count for either except by saying that it was
thought out before it was wrought out ; that it
was a concept in mind ere it could possibly
appear as a configuration in matter ; that before
it became a fact in nature it must needs have
been a tJiought in Godf"^

14. Can we say that although the prospect-
glass is the product of mind, yet no mind pre-
sided over the structure of the eye ? According
to Mr. Darwin, we can and ought. And yet
Mr. Darwin begins by admitting it to be
apparently "in the highest degree absurd to
suppose that tlie eye, with all its INIMITABLE
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of
light, and for the correction of spherical and
chromatic aberration, could have been formed
by natural selection." He then proceeds to
indicate some " probable " stages in the process
by which, as he believes, the eye was formed —
a process of natural selection, and of that
alone. His first postulate is, a nerve specially
endowed with sensibility to light. The optic
nerve thus — not formed, but — fancied merely,
surrounded by pigment cells, and covered by
translucent skin, will, in millions ofiages, select
^ " The Three Barriers,'* pp. 61 ei seq.

278 Scientific Sophisms.

itself into an eye. Let it be granted : — " in the
highest degree absurd " though it be. But the
primary postulate — how does Mr. Darwin get
that ? " How a nerve comes to be sensitive to
light," he says, " hardly concerns us more than
how life itself originated." Perhaps not: but
both questions are studiously evaded when we
are left to infer that the nerve made itself,
and that life caused itself to live; or, in
other words, that both are examples of what
Mr. Darwin strangely calls ^^ variation causing
alterations^

Take now the several steps of the process as
pursued by Natural Selection according to Mr.
Darwin ; and let but the power competent to
do the things which he assumes are done, be
credited with sense enough to be aware of its
competence, and it may then be regarded as not
unlikely to have done some of them on purpose.
Whereupon, the genesis of the eye ceases to be
a mystery. " All the appearances of contrivance
that have resulted from the operation find their
obvious and complete explanation in the as-
sumption of a contriver, and all such hazy films
as that of variability producing variation cease
to be capable of serving as excuses for wilful
blindness. 'And why should not the power in
question be so credited } Here is Mr. Darwin's

Anima Mundi. 279

solitary reason why. He doubts whether the
inference implied may not be 'presumptuous.'
He apprehends that we have no 'right to
assume that the Creator works by intellectual
powers like those of a man.* Truly, of all
suggested modes of marking respect for creative
power, that of assuming it to have worked un-
intelHgently is the most original."^

" From what I know, through my own speci-
ality, both geometry and experiment, of the
structure of lenses and the human eye, I do not
believe that any amount of evolution, extending
through any amount of time consistent with
the requirements of our astronomical knowledge,
could have issued in the production of that
most beautiful and complicated instrument, the
human eye. There are too many curved sur-
faces, too many distances, too many densities
of the media, each essential to the other, too
great a facility of ruin by slight disarrangement,
to admit of anything short of the intervention
of an intelligent Will at some stage of the
evolutionary process. The most perfect, and at
the same time the most difficult optical con-
trivance known is the powerful achromatic
object glass of a microscope; its structure is
the long-unhoped-for result of the ingenuity of
* Thornton : " Old- Fashioned Ethics," pp. 238, 239.

28o Scientific Sophisms.

many powerful minds ; yet in complexity and in
perfection it falls infinitely below the structure
of the eye. Disarrange any one of the curva-
tures of the many surfaces, or distances, or
densities of the latter ; or worse, disarrange its
incomprehensible self-adaptive power, the like
of which is possessed by the handiwork of
nothing human, and all the opticians in the
world could not tell you what is the correlative
alteration necessary to repair it, and still less to
improve it, as natural selection is presumed to
imply.'-

15. The case is too strong to be explained
away. Nature is full of plan, and yet she plans
not : she is only plastic to a plan. That plan
carries with it its own unanswerable attestation
to all healthy understandings. It has its warp
indeed, as well as its woof The exquisite
variety of creative adjustments reposes on a
basis of fundamental order: exhaustless speci-
alities of adaptation are engrafted on a pervasive
unity of type. Morphology, rightly viewed, is
not the negation, but one grand phase of the
revelation of plan. Teleology is the other. " It
has been by following the lamp of Final Cause,
and obeying her beckoning hand, that the

* Professor Pritchard's Address at the Brighton Con-
gress (1874).

Anima Mundi, 281

masters of anatomical and physiological science,
from Galen to Cuvier, and from Harvey to
Owen, have been guided to their splendid dis-
coveries." But the irrepressible question. For
what ? is naturally followed by the further ques-
tion, From Whom ? The measure of the confi-
dence with which Science assumes a use is the
measure of the confidence with which Religion
affirms <3:« Author. "He that planted the ear,
shall He not hear ? Or He that made the eye,
shall He not see?" This argument has been
esteemed unanswerable, not only by the most
masculine reasoners among Christian divines,
Barrow and Paley, Chalmers and Whewell : " it
has carried conviction, from the time of Socrates
to that of Cuvier, to the foremost minds of the
human race, and found almost its sole antago-
nists among spinners of cobwebs and dreamers
of dreams. . . . The prints of Divine fore-
thought, and the convictions they engender, are
scattered over the face of universal nature, and
ploughed into the very subsoil of the human
mind."

16. To conclude. Modern Materialism then,
as expounded by its ablest advocates, whether
under the guise of Positive Agnosticism, or that
of Scientific Atheism, has no key to unlock the

282 Scientific Sophisms,

mysteries of Being. Propounded as a theory of
the Universe, it has no commencement and no
continuity. There are " First Beginnings " of
which it has no knowledge. There are Barriers
which it cannot pass, and chasms which it can-
not cross, and deeps which it cannot fathom,
and mysteries which it cannot even pretend to
explain. That extension which we call space ;
that duration which we call time ; that sub^
stance which we call matter ; whence came
they ? " There shall be no Alps " — ? They
shall be explained away.^ Matter shall be
defined in terms of Mind t Space and Time
shall be declared non-entities — non-existent
outside the faculties of the Being percipient } ^

But then whence came this Being .^ and
whence came his faculty " percipient " ? Matter,
too, however defined, is possessed of certain
properties, and constituted in definite propor-
tions, and specified in distinct categories — car-
bon, gold, iodine, etc., — ^whence came all these ?
Then too, besides material properties, there are
material forces. Heat is a mode of motion ;
and motion is a result of force; and force
operates according to law. But who ordained
the Law ? and who upholds it ? Who estab-
lished " the sequence of events as observed by

* See Appendix, Note G.

Anima Mundi. 283

us " ? Who originated Motion ? Where is the
primal Force ?

" We will assume that science has done its
utmost; and that every chemical or animal
force is demonstrably resolvable into heat or
motion, reciprocally changing into each other.
I would myself like better, in order of thought,
to consider motion as a mode of heat than heat
as a mode of motion : still, granting that we
have got thus far, we have yet to ask, What is
heat ? or what motion ? What is this * primo
mobile,' this transitional power, in which all
things live, and move, and have their being ?
It is by definition something different from
matter, and we may call it as we choose — * first
cause,' or * first light,' or ' first heat ' ; but we
can show no scientific proof of its not being
personal, and coinciding with the ordinary con-
ception of a supporting spirit in all things." ^

"The Lord of all. Himself through all diffused.
Sustains, and is the life of all that lives.
Nature is but a name for an effect.
Whose cause is God."

With Him is the breath of Life. With Him is
the secret of Power. This is what men of
science " are finding more and more, below their

1 "The Queen of the Air :" by John Ruskin, LL.D.
(1869), p. 74.

284 Scientific Sophisms.

facts, below all phenomena which the scalpel
and the microscope can show; a something
nameless, invisible, imponderable, yet seemingly
omnipresent and omnipotent, retreating before
them deeper and deeper, the deeper they
delve ; that which the old schoolmen called
' forma formativa,' the mystery of that unknown
and truly miraculous element in nature which
is always escaping them, though they cannot
escape it ; that of which it was written of old,
'Whither shall I go from Thy presence, or
whither shall I flee from Thy Spirit ? ' " ^

17. Proof? See it in the great gulf between
the organic and the inorganic, the living and
the not-living, a grain of sand and a grain of
corn. See it in the inscrutable phenomena of
growth. See it in the immutable order which
dominates the countless varieties of the vegeta-
ble world. Amid all those varieties, with their
corresponding powers, it does not matter in the
least by what concurrences of circumstance or
necessity they may gradually have been de-
veloped : the concurrence of circumstance is
itself the supreme and inexplicable fact. " We
always come at last to a formative cause, which
directs the circumstance and mode of meeting
^ Canon Kingsley. Lecture at Sion College.

Anima Mundi. 285

it. If you ask an ordinary botanist the reason
of the form of a leaf, he will tell you it is a
' developed tubercle/ and that its ultimate form
'is owing to the directions of its vascular
threads.' But what directs its vascular threads?
'They are seeking for something they want/
he will probably answer. What made them
want that ? What made them seek for it thus }
Seek for it, in five fibres or in three } Seek for
it, in serration, or in sweeping curves } Seek
for it in servile tendrils, or impetuous spray ?
Seek for it in woollen wrinkles rough with
stings, or in glossy surfaces, green with pure
strength, and winterless delight } " It is Mr.
Ruskin who asks these questions : and it is
Mr. Ruskin who adds, " There is no answer." ^

Then too this leaf, whatever its form, is alive.
It points, not more to a Formative Cause than
to a Living Power. Polarity of atoms, mole-
cular movements, chemical affinities, may be
adduced to explain, even while in fact they con-
ceal, the phenomena of structure and configura-
tion in the inorganic world. But when the
chemical affinities are brought under the in-
fluence of the air, and of solar heat, the forma-
tive force enters an entirely different phase.
" It does not now merely crystallize indefinite
* " Queen of the Air," p. 104.

286 Scientific Sophisms.

masses, but it gives to limited portions of matter
the power of gathering, selectively, other ele-
ments proper to them, and binding these
elements into their own peculiar and adopted
form." But this "power of gathering select-
ively," the power that catches out of chaos
charcoal, water, lime, or what not, and fastens
them down into a given form, the power that is
continually creating its own shells of definite
shape out of the wreck round it, — What is it ?
and Whence ? " There is no answer."

Next comes the gap which separates vegeta-
ble from animal life. "These are necessarily
the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes
and accumulates, the other oxidizes and ex-
pends. Only in reproduction or decay does the
plant simulate the action of the animal, and the
animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the
functions of the plant. Those obscure cases in
the humbler spheres of animal and vegetable life
which have been supposed to show a union of
the two kingdoms, disappear on investigation."
This is the testimony of Principal Dawson,
who adds, " This gap can, I believe, be filled up
only by an appeal to our ignorance." ^

1 " Story of the Earth and Man." By J. W. Dawson,
LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., etc. Hodder and Stoughton, 1873,
p. 326. [See p. 298, to which this Reference belongs.]

Anima Mundi. 287

Of the chasms which separate species, the
same author writes, — " It was this gap, and this
only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his
great work on the origin of species, but not-
withstanding the immense amount of material
thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since
it must be admitted that no case has been
ascertained in which an individual of one species
has transgressed the limits between it and other
species." ^

Transcending all the rest is the gulf that
separates the brute from man. It is Professor
Huxley himself who tells us that the "diver-
gence of the Human from the Simian Stirps " is
" immeasurable and practically infinite." Who
made it so? Huxley believes, with Cuvier,
that " the possession of articulate speech is the
grand distinctive character of man." But
whence did he derive an endowment so unique
and so invaluable ? " Men have wordSy which
are projected ideas ; brutes have only sounds ^
which are projected sensations. Brutes voci-
ferate: men speak. The physical organiza-
tion is wedded to the mental capacity — a mouth,
and wisdom. Neither, apart, would effloresce
into Language : both must conspire and com-
bine. So the one mind which has thoughts to

* See Appendix, Note H.

288 Scientific Sophisms.

be interpreted is furnished in the human tongue
with an all-accomplished interpreter." But
whence came this "one mind which has
thoughts to be interpreted " ?

What is the origin of Mind ? What is the
genesis of Thought ?

1 8. For Thought is no mere "function of the
brain " ; nor is it " medullary matter that
thinks." " The function of the lung is not un-
intelligible ; it can be followed throughout, and
understood throughout Though the peculiar-
ity of vitality mingles there, it can still, in a
certain aspect, be called a physical function, and
its result is of an identical nature. If, and
so far as, the function is physical, the result is
physical. So with the stomach : function and
result are there in the same category of being.
The liver is so far a physical organ that it can
be seen, it can be touched, it can be handled ;
but is it otherwise with the bile, which is the
result of its function } Can it too, not be seen,
and touched, and handled ? Is it not essentially
of the same nature t Is it not physical, in the
same way and to the same extent as the liver
is physical } But look now to the brain, and
the so-called product of its function. Do we
any longer find the same identity of the terms }
No ; the terms there are veritable extremes —

Anima Mundi. 289

extremes wider than the poles apart — extremes
sundered by the whole diameter of being. The
result here, then, is not like the result of any
other function. // is wholly unique ; something
quite new, fresh, and original ; something un-
precedented, something unparalleled, absolutely
single and singular, absolutely sui generis. The
result here in fact, is the very antithesis, the
very counterpart of the organ which is sup-
posed to function it.

" An organ, after all, consists of parts ; but
thought has no parts, thought is one. Matter
has one set of qualities ; Mind, another ; and
these sets are wholly incommensurable, wholly
incommunicable. A feeling is not square, a
thought is not oval. . . . No function of
the body, and no function of any machine out
of the body, presents any parallel to the nature
of thought." 1

Before this problem of the genesis of
Thought, Materialism is dumb. And yet this
same Thought (" without precedent," " without
parallel,") has changed the face of the world.
"From the moment when the first skin was used
as a covering, when the first rude spear was
formed to assist in the chase, the first seed sown

1 Dr. Stirling's " Materialism in relation to the Study
of Medicine," p. 8.

290 Scientific Sophisms

or root planted, a grand revolution was efiected
in nature, a revolutum which in all the preuiaus
ages of the world* s history had had no parallel^ for
a being had arisen who was no longer necessarily
subject to change with the changing universe, —
a being who was in some degree superior to
nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and
r^^late her action, and could keep himself in
harmony with her, not by a change in body,
but by an advance in mind.

"Here then we see the true grandeur and
dignity of man. On this view of his special
attributes, we may admit that even those who
claim for him a position and an order, a class, or
a sub-kingdom by himself, have some reason on
their side. He is, indeed, a being apart, since
he is not influenced by the great laws which ir-
resistibly modify all other oi^^anic beings. . . .
Man has not only escaped 'natural selection'
himself, but he is actually able to take away
some of that power from nature which, before
his appearance, she universally exercised." ^

Conclusive as is this testimony in itself, it is
doubly so on account of the quarter from which
it comes. From a very different quarter comes

* Mr. Wallace, in the Anthropological Review^ May,
1864.

Anima Mundi. 291

the characteristic, but concurrent testimony of
Thomas Carlyle : —

" Capabilities there were in me " (says Teufelsdrockh)
" to give battle, in some small degree, against the great
Empire of Darkness : does not the very Ditcher and Delver,
with his spade, extinguish many a thistle and puddle ; and
so leave a little Order, where he found the opposite? Nay,
your very Daymoth has capabilities in this kind ; and
ever organizes something (into its own Body, if no other-
wise), which was before Inorganic ; and of mute dead air
makes living music, though only of the faintest, by hum-
ming.

"How much more, one whose capabilities are spiritual ;
who has learned, or begun learning, the grand thauma"
turgic art of Thought! Thaumaturgic I name it ; for
hitherto all Miracles have been wrought thereby, and
henceforth innumerable will be wrought ; whereof we,
even in these days, witness some. Of the Poets' and
Prophets' inspired Message, and how it makes and un-
makes whole worlds^ I shall forbear mention : but cannot
the dullest hear Steam-engines clanking around him ? " ^

What then, is the origin, and who is the
originator of " that subtle force which we term
Mind " ?

19. Man, as defined by Professor Huxley,^ is "a
conscious automaton," "endowed with free-will";
and in his Essay on "The Physical Basis of
Life " he confesses that " our volition counts for

^ " Sartor Resartus/' chap. iv.

^ Fortnightly Review^ November, 1874, p. 577.

292 Scientific Sophisms.

something as a condition of the course of events "/
and that this " can be verified experimentally as
often as we like to try." ^ This machine which
is not mechanical ; this automaton with a will
of its own ; this creature whose actions are at
once automatic and autonomic ; this " automa-
ton endowed with free-will," is a novel inven-
tion quite worthy of Mr. Huxley's ingenuity.
But whence did it derive the faculties with
which he says it is endowed t

It is ''conscious," he tells us. And its
" volition counts for something." What then is
Volition ? and whence ? And what is Con-
sciousness }

"Can you satisfy the human understanding
in its demand for logical continuity between
molecular processes and the phenomena of
consciousness ? " It is Professor Tyndall who
asks this question, and his answer to it is
this : —

" This is a rock on which materialism must
inevitably split whenever it pretends to be a
complete philosophy of life." *

And with the candid and elegant Lucretian,
Professor Huxley — notwithstanding his material-
istic declaration of faith in molecular machinery

* " Lay Sermons," p. 145.
' Belfast Address.

Anima Mundu 293

— agrees. " What consciousness is," he says, " we
know not ; and how it is that anything so
remarkable as a state of consciousness comes
about as the result of irritating nervous tissue,
is just as unaccountable as the appearance of
the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp in the
story." 1

" Afferent nerves lie here, and carry to ;
efferent nerves lie there, and carry from ; but in
none of them — neither in fibre of nerve nor
in fibre of brain, will you find any hint of
consciousness. How any material impressions
should awake thought ; but, still more, how, in
independence of all impressions, thought should
be all the while there, alive and active, A world
BY ITSELF — that is the mystery. And that no
scalpel, no microscope, will ever explain.
Mechanical balances the most delicate, chemical
tests the most sensitive, are all powerless there.
And why } Simply because consciousness and
they are incommensurable, of another nature, of
another world from the first, sundered from
each other, as I have said, by the whole
diameter of being." ^

" It is quite true that the tympanum of the
ear vibrates under sound, and that the surface of

* Huxle/s " Physiology," p. 193.

2 Stirling's " Materialism " ut sup,, p. 7.

294 Scientific Sophisms.

the water in a ditch vfbrates too ; but the ditch
hears nothing for all that ; and my hearing is
still to me as blessed a mystery as ever, and the
interval between the ditch and me, quite as
great If the trembling sound in my ears was
once of the marriage-bell which began my
happiness, and is now of the passing-bell which
ends it, the difference between those two sounds
to me cannot be counted by the number of
concussions. There have been some curious
speculations lately as to the conveyance of
mental consciousness by * brain-waves/ What
does it matter how it is conveyed ? The
consciousness itself is not a wave. It may be
accompanied here or there by any quantity of
quivers and shakes, up or down, of anything
you can find in the universe that is shakeable —
what is that to me ? My friend is dead, and my
— according to modern views — vibratory sorrow
is not one whit less, or less mysterious, to me,
than my old quiet one." ^

Whence came then this emergence of Per-
sonal Consciousness among the world of living
creatures ? From what source have we derived
that sense of individual personality which con-
stitutes "an altogether new and original fact,
one which cannot be conceived as developed or

^ Ruskin : * Athena," p. 7a

Anima Mundi. 295

developable out of any pre-existing phenomena
or conditions " ? That consciousness of an I
Myself, of Personality, which asserts an anti-
thesis between the Man, and all that the Man
makes his own — whence came it, if not from that
Eternal Consciousness, that Divine Personality
Who, when He made us, made us in His Own
image ?

20. Science, in the modern doctrine of the
Conservation of Energy, and the Convertibility of
Forces, insists, with increasing emphasis, that all
kinds of Force are but forms or manifestations
of some one Central Force issuing from some one
Fountain-head of Power. Sir John Herschel
has not hesitated to say, that " it is but reason-
able to regard the Force of Gravitation as the
direct or indirect result of a Consciousness or a
Will existing somewhere." ^ But if for the
phenomena of the material world you must
have an external Will, how much more for those
which characterize the World of Mind! "A
will that hangs by the Central Will " is in-
telligible : but, refuse to recognise that Central
Will, and then how can you account for that
" lord paramount," the Human Will ?

" Two things," said Immanuel Kant, " are
awful to me : the starry firmament, and the

* " Outlines of Astronomy." Fifth Edition, p. 291.

296 Scientific Sophisms.

sense of Responsibility in Man." And again :
" Duty ! wondrous thought, that workest neither
by fond insinuation, flattery, nor by any
threat, but merely by holding up thy naked
'law in the soul,* and so extorting for thyself
always reverence, if not always obedience;
before whom all appetites are dumb, however
secretly they rebel ; WHENCE THY ORIGINAL ? *'

Enough. Nature is a hierarchy, and the
head is Man. " Mind, language, civilization,
worship — the will to determine, the tongue to
speak, the hand to do — these, in their boundless
purport, are all awanting till the Creator plants
upon the scene the solitary owner of the Perfect
Brain. Named in one word, all these are
wisdom ; and Man, ' thinker of God's thoughts
after Him,' is, among uncounted myriads of
lower existences, on this earth the Only
Wise." 1

" This universe is not an accidental cavity, in
which an accidental dust has been accidentally
swept into heaps for the accidental evolution
of the majestic spectacle of organic and in-
organic life. That majestic spectacle is a
spectacle as plainly for the eye of reason as any

1 " The Three Barriers," p. 96.

Anthta Mundi. 297

diagram of mathematic. That majestic spec-
tacle could have been constructed, was con-
structed, only in reason, for reason, and by
reason. From beyond Orion and the Pleiades,
across the green hem of earth, up to the im-
perial personality of man, all, the furthest, the
deadest, the dustiest, is for fusion in the invisible
point of the single Ego — which alone glorifies it,
ForXhQ subject, and on the model of the subject,
all is made.'* ^

" But the stone doth not deliberate whether
it shall descend, nor the wheat take counsel
whether or not it shall grow. Even men do
not advise how their hearts shall beat, though
without that pulse they cannot live. What then
can be more clear than that those natural agents
which work constantly, for those ends which they
themselves cannot perceive^ must be directed by
some high and over-ruling wisdom, and who is
that but the great Artificer who works in all of
them .^ . . . For, as ' every house is builded
by some man,' and the earth bears no such
creature of itself; stones do not grow into a wall,
or first hew and square, then unite and fasten
themselves together ; trees sprout not cross
like dry and sapless beams, nor spars and tiles

* " As Regards Protoplasm," p. 37.

298 Scientific Sophisms,

arrange themselves into a roof ; as these are the
supplies of art, and testimonies to the under-
standing of man, the great artificer on earth, so
is the world itself but a house, the habitation
and the handiwork of an Infinite Intelligence,
and * He who built all things is God! " ^

a 17 hol^a eh tov<; al&va<; r&v aldvcDV, afirjv.

' Pearson : " On the Creed," Art. I. Vide infrcty Ap-
pendix, Note K.

APPENDIX

«99

APPENDIX.

NOTE A. Page 5.
Chorus.

Life and the universe show spontaneity :
Down with ridiculous notions of Deity !
Churches and creeds are all lost in the mists :
Truth must be sought with the Positivists.

If you are pious (mild form of insanity),
Bow down and worship the mass of Humanity.
Other religions are buried in mists,
We 're our own Gods, say the Positivists.

EUELPIDES.

These Positivists are very positive.

Peisthetairus.

And very negative too. I can't agree

With folk who fancy they're their own creators.

" The British Birds. By the Ghost of Aristophanes,"
(Mortimer Collins), 1872. P. 47, et seq,

30s

302 Appendix,

NOTE B. Page 27.

In the Third Edition of his " First Principles" (Stereo-
typed), Mr. Spencer, concluding his observations on this
topic, says, — " From the remotest past which Science
can fathom, up to the novelties of yesterday, an essential
trait of Evolution has been the transformation of the
homogeneous into the heterogeneous." And his last
word on the subject is this : —

" As we now understand it. Evolution is definable as
a change from an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent
heterogeneity, accompanying the dissipation of motion
and integration of matter." — Pp. 359, 360.

NOTE C. Pages 175 and 214.

Lawrence, who quotes in confirmation the words of
Cuvier, thus concludes his disquisition on the subject : —
** We may conclude, then, from a general review of the
preceding facts, that nature has provided, by the insur-
mountable BARRIER of instinctive aversion, of sterility
in the hybrid offspring, and in the allotment of species
to different parts of the earth, against any corruption
or change of species in wild animals. We must therefore
admit, for all the species which we know at present, as
sufficiently distinct and constant, a distinct origin and
common ddX^J* ^Lectures on Physiology, First Edition.
P. 261.

Cuvier had previously said,—" La nature a soin d'em-
p^cher ^alteration des esp^ces, qui pourroit r^sulter de
leur melange, par Faversion mutuelle qu'elle leur a donn^e :
il faut toutes les ruses, toute la contrainte de Thomme
pour faire contracter ces unions, m6me aux esp^ces qui se
ressemblent le plus . . . aussi ne voyons nous pas
dans nos bois d'individus intermediaires entre le li^vre

Appendix. 303

et le lapin, entrel le cerf et le daim, entre la marte et la
fouine ? " — Discours Preliminaire, P. 76, (See also P. 71).
And subsequently, M. Flourens, — " II y a deux carac-
t^res qui font juger de Pesp^ce : la forme, comma dit
M. Darwin, ou la ressemblance, et le fdconditi, Mais il
y a longtemps que j'ai fait voir que la ressemblance, la
forme, n'est qu'un caract^re accessoire : le seul caractlre
essentiei est la f^condite. . . . Uesp^ce est d'une
fdconditi continue, et toutes les vari^t^s sont entre elles
d'une ficonditi continue, ce qui prouve qu'elles ne sont
pas sorties de Tesp^ce, qu'elles restent esp^ce qu'elle ne
sont que Tesp^ce, qui s'est diversement nuanc^e. Au
contraire, les esp^ces sont distinctes entre elles, far la
raison decisive, qu'il n'y a entre elles qu'une ficofiditi
bornSe, J'ai d^jk dit cela, mais je ne saurais trop le
redire." — " Examen du Livre de M. Darwin, Sur POri-
S^ne,** etc. Pp. 34-36.

NOTE D. Page 221.

" There was an Ape in the days that were earlier ;
Centuries passed, and his hair became curlier ;
Centuries more gave a thumb to his wrist —
Then he was Man, and a Positivist."

(" The British Birds," ut sup., p. 48.)

NOTE E. Page 221.

"11. Now these are the generations of the hjgher
vertebrata. In the cosmic period the Unknowable evo-
luted the bipedal mammalia.

12. And every man of the earth while he was yet a
monkey, and the horse while he was a hipparion, and the
hipparion before he was an oredon.

13. Out of the ascidian came the amphibian and begat

304 Appendix,

the pentadactyle ; and the pentadactyle by inheritance
and selection produced the hylobate, from which are the
simiadae in all their tribes.

14. And out of the simiadae the lemur prevailed above
his fellows, and produced the platyrhine monkey.

15. And the platyrhine begat the catarrhine, and the
catarrhine monkey begat the anthropoid ape, and the ape
begat the longimanous orang, and the orang begat the
chimpanzee, and the chimpanzee evoluted the what-is-it

16. And the what-is-it went into the land of Nod and
took him a wife of the longimanous gibbons.

17. And in process of the cosmic period were bom
unto them and their children the anthropomorphic prim-
ordial types.

18. The homunculus, the prognathus, the troglodyte,
the autochthon, the terragen : — ^these are the generations
of primeval man.'* — The New Cosmogony,

NOTE F. Page 223.

" * Will you have why and wherefore, and the fact
Made plain as pikestaff?' modem Science asks.
* That mass man sprung from was a jelly-lump
Once on a time ; he kept an after course
Through fish and insect, reptile, bird and beast.
Till he attained to be an ape at last
Or last but one.' ""

" Prince Hohenstiel-Schwangau : Saviour of Society.**
By Robert Browning. Smith, Elder & Co., 1871. P. 68.

NOTE G. Page 282.

" Except by neglecting to distinguish between sight and
hearing, the effects, and light and sound, their respective

Appendix. 305

causes, it would surely have been impossible for Professor
Huxley to come to the strange conclusion that if all living
beings were blind and deaf, * darkness and silence would
everywhere reign.' Had he not himself previously ex-
plained that light and sound are peculiar motions com-^
municated to the vibrating particles of an universally
diffused ether, which motions, on reaching the eye or
ear, produce impressions which, after various modifica-
tions, result eventually in seeing or hearing ? How these
motions are communicated to the ether matters not.
Only it is indispensable to note that they are not com-
municated by the percipient owner of the eye or ear, so
that the fact of there being no percipient present cannot
possibly furnish any reason why the motions should not
go on all the same.

" But as long as they did go on there would necessarily
be light and sound ; for the motions are themselves light
and sound. If, on returning to his study in which, an
hour before, he had left a candle burning and a clock
ticking. Professor Huxley should perceive from the ap-
pearance of candle and clock that they had gone on
burning and ticking during his absence, would he doubt
that they had likewise gone on producing the motions
constituting and termed light and sound, notwithstanding
that no eyes or ears had been present to see or hear?
But if he did not doubt this, how could he any more
doubt that, although all sentient creatures suddenly be-
came eyeless and earless, the sun might go on shining,
and the wind roaring, and the sea bellowing as before ?''
— Thornton^ s ^* Huxleyism,^*

NOTE H. Page 287.

It is important to observe that not a few of those who
strenuously maintain a doctrine of Evolution, (though not
Mr. Darwin's doctrine,) not a few even of Mr. Darwin's

3o6 Appendix.

most ardent admirers, maintain at the same time and not
less strenuously, that the facts in relation to that theory
are altogether inexplicable, apart from the recognition of
an Intelligent Designer, a presiding Mind, a Universal
Power, creative, formative, sustaining.

Thus, for instance, Mr. Thornton, while eulogizing what
he calls "the soundness of all the main and really essential
principles of Darwinism," exposes with just severity the
incompetence and inadequacy of the theories adopted —
and necessarily adopted — ^by those teleologists who reject
teleology.

When Mr. Darwin attempts to account for Instinct by
hypothecating the accumulation of slight variations from
a primordial type — "variations produced by the same un-
known causes as those which produce slight deviations of
bodily structure" — Mr. I'homton replies : " But here I am
once more compelled to join issue with him. Of the
causes which he styles unknown, I maintain that we know
at least thus much— either they are themselves intelligent
forces, or they are forces acting under intelligent direction ;
and in support of this proposition I need not perhaps do
more than show from Mr. Darwin's example what infinitely
harder things must be accepted by those who decline to
accept this."

Having done this most elaborately, and conceded the
long list of "admissions" for which " not a little liberality
is required," he thus concludes : —

'• Let us, however, liberally waive this and all similar objections,
and assume a community of hive bees to have been, in the utterly
unaccountable manner indicated by the term spontaneous variation,
developed from a meliponish stock. Unfortunately, all our liberality
will be found to have been thrown away without perceptibly simpli-
fying the problem to be solved. For whatever be among meliponse
the distribution of the generative capacities, among hive bees, at any
rate, all workers are sterile neuters^ which never have any offspring
to whom to bequeath their cell-making skill, while the queen-bee and
drones^ which alone can become parents, have no such skill to be-

Appendix, 307

queath. Clearly, the formula of 'descent with modification by
natural selection,' is, in its literal sense, utterly inapplicable here. In
whatever manner the cell-making faculty might have been acquired
by the first homogeneous swarm of hive bees, it must inevitably have
terminated with the generation with which it commenced, if trans-
mission by direct descent had been necessary for its continuance.
The only resource open to Mr. Darwin is to suppose not merely
(what is indeed, obviously the fact) that queen-bee after queen-bee,
besides generating each in turn a progeny of workers endowed with
instincts which their parents did not possess and could not therefore
impart, generated also princess-bees destined in due season to gene-
rate a working progeny similarly endowed with instincts underived
from their parents ; but to suppose, further, that all this has hap-
pened in the total absence of aim, object, intention, or design.

" Now that all this should have so happened, although not abso-
lutely inconceivable ; nor, therefore, absolutely impossible, is surely
too incredible to be believed except in despair of some other hypo-
thesis a trifle less preposterous. It is surely not worth while to set
the doctrine of probabilities so completely at naught, for the sake of

AN EXPLANATION WHICH AVOWEDLY LEAVES EVERY DIFFICULTY

UNEXPLAINED, referring them all to causes not simply unknown
but unconjecturable.

"What excuse then have philosophers, of all people, for doing
this in preference to the simple expedient of supposing that, although
the parturient bee, queen or other, cannot intend that any of her
progeny should be more bounteously endowed than herself, * there
is AN INDEPENDENT INTELLIGENCE that does 50 intend f " — '• Re-
cent Phases of Scientific Atheism."

NOTE J. Page 190.

The Fine Old Atom Molecule.

Air.—" T/te Fine Old English GentlemanJ^

{To be sung at cdl gatherings of advanced Sciolists and

Scientists,)

We'll sing you a grand new song, evolved from a 'cute

young pate,
Of a fine old Atom- Molecule of prehistoric date,

3o8 Appendix.

In size infinitesimal, in potencies though great,

And self-formed for developing at a prodigious rate —

Like a fine old Atom-Molecule,

Of the young World's proto-prime !

In it slept all the forces in our cosmos that run rife.
To stir Creation's giants or its microscopic life ;
Harmonious in discord, and cooperant in strife.
To this small cell committed, the World lived with his
Wife—
In this fine old Atom- Molecule,
Of the young World's proto-prime !

In this autoplastic archetype of Protean protein lay

All the humans Space has room for, or for whom Time

makes a day.
From the Sage whose words of wisdom Prince or Parlia-
ment obey.
To the Parrots who but prattle, and the Asses who but
bray —

So full was this Atom- Molecule,
Of the young World's proto-prime !

All brute-life, from Lamb to Lion, from the Serpent to
the Dove,

All that pains the sense or pleases, all the heart can
loathe or love.

All instincts that drag downwards, all desires that up-
wards move.

Were caged, a " happy family," cheek-by-jowl and hand-
in-glove.

In this fine old Atom- Molecule,
Of the young World's proto-prime !

In it Order grew from Chaos, Light out of Darkness

shined,
Design sprang up by Accident, Law's rule from Hazard

blind,

Appendix. 309

The Soul-less Soul evolving — against, not after, kind —
As the Life-less Life developed, and the Mind-less ripened
Mind,

In this fine old Atom- Molecule,

Of the young World's proto-prime !

Then bow down. Mind, to Matter ; from brain-fibre. Will,

withdraw ;
Fall Man's heart to cell Ascidian, sink Man's hand to

Monkey's paw ;
And bend the knee to Protoplast in philosophic awe —
Both Creator and Created, at once work and source of
Law,
And our Lord be the Atom- Molecule,
Of the young World's proto-prime !

Punch,

NOTE K. Page 298.

While these latter sheets are passing through the press,
there appears in The Worlds the paragraph here sub-
joined ; a paragraph interesting and important under any
circumstances, but under existing circumstances, doubly
so.

" Frank Buckland died on the 19th ultimo [/>., Dec.
1880], working to the last. Two days before (on the
17th), he finished the preface to his latest book, the
Natural History of British Fishes, From early sheets
of that preface, I make the following extract, in which
the dying man — evidently, from the context, not then
knowing himself dying — makes a declaration of belief
which is wholly antagonistic to the theories of Darwin
and his school : —

" * I have another object in writing this book ; it is to
endeavour to show the truth of the good old doctrines of
the Bridgewater Treatises, which have so ably demon-

3 1 o Appendix.

strated the ^ power ^ wisdom^ and goodness of God^ as
manifested in the Creation!^ Of late years the doctrines
of so-called " Evolution'* and " Development/' have seem-
ingly gained ground amongst those interested in natural
history ; but I have too much faith in the good sense
and natural acumen of my fellow countrymen to think
that these tenets will be very long-lived. To put
matters very straight, I steadfastly believe that the Great
Creator, as indeed we are directly told, made all things
perfect and "very good'* from the beginning; perfect
and very good every created thing is now found to be,
and will so continue to the end of time.' "

M.B.B.A.

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and Loudon.

GEOLOGICAL WORKS BY

J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.

Principal of McGill University, Montreal.

I.
Sixth Edition. Crown Bvo, clot A, js. 6d.

THE STORY of the EARTH AND MAN.

JVitk Tiventy Illustrations,

*' This most valuable volume. We commend the book to all
who wish to obtain information on scientific subjects, presented in
a reverential spirit, and with singular harmony and intelligence." —
Christian Observer,

II.
Second Edition. Crown Qvo, cloth, ^s. 6d.

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD.

According to Revelation and Science.

" Any one who will study Dr. Dawson's three recent volumes,
The Story of the Earth and Man^ Life's Dawn on Earth, and the
Origin of the Worlds will not only gain much trustworthy informa-
tion on matters of romantic interest, but will make the acquaintance
of a writer who is as vigorous as he is modest, and as modest as he
is vigorous ; who knows how to throw the air of genius around
even the minuter facts and details of philosophical inquiry ; and who
combines a true scientific independence of thought with a reverent
faith in the Scriptures and the Gospel." — London Quarterly Review,

III.
Second Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.

LIFE'S DAWN ON EARTH.

Being the History of the oldest known Fossil Remains.
JVith numerous full-page Engravings and Woodcuts,

** The tale of this discovery has never been told with anything
like the fulness and clearness with which Dr. Dawson has now
brought it before the public. " — Saturday Review.

IV.
Second Thousand. Crown Bvo. Price js. 6d.

FOSSIL MEN, AND THEIR MODERN

REPRESENTATIVES. An attempt to illustrate the
Characters and Condition of Pre-Historic men in Europe by
those of the American Races.

JVith Forty four Illustrations,

'* A keen observer of the habits of the red man, and a diligent
student of American antiquities, he is able, by analogical reasoning,
to throw light upon the probable condition of pre-historic man in
Europe, and upon the nature of the relics which he has bequeathed
to us." — Athenceum,

London : HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 37, Paternoster Row.

POPULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL TEXT-BOOKS,

By H. SINCLAIR PATERSON, M.D.

I.
Second Thousand, Crown BvOt cloth, ar, 6d.

STUPIES IN 'LIFE.

II.

Second Thousand. Crown Bvo, <;ldtkt 2s, 6d.

HEALTH STUDIES.

III.

Second Thousand, Crown Qvo, cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE HUMAN BODY AND ITS

FUNCTIONS.

" This most useful little work. Of that which is physiological, and which makes
up the chief part of the volume, I can speak with unqualined praise. The facts
are carefully selected, the setting is clear, the argimient or statement Ls well sus-
tained, and the style so easy that he who runs may read. Dr. Paterson's treatise
would form an excellent reading book in schools, for scholars who have advanced
into the science classes." — B. W. Richardson, M.D., F.R.S.

AUTHOR'S POPULAR EDITIONS

OF THE

REY. JOSEPH COOK'S BOSTON MOMY LECTURES,

COMPLETE IN EIGHT VOLUMES,

Price Eighteenpence each,
Crown Svo., Good TypCy Handsomely Bound,

1. Biology. With Preludes on Current Events.

2. Transcend^nt^ism. With Preludes on Current Events.

3. Orthodoxy. With Preludes on Current Events, and Appendix.

4. Conscience. With Preludes on Current Events.

5. Heredity. With Preludes on Current Events.

6. Marriage. With Preludes on Current Events.

7. Labour. With Preludes on Current Events.

8. Socialism. With Preludes on Current Events.

Superior Editions 3j. 6d, each, Cloth.

TH£ ONLY COMPLETE ENGLISH EDITION,

The Rev. Joseph Cook, says :—** No other British publisher has the right,
which I now give to your firm, to state that the republication of my Lectures is
by arrangement with, and under the supervision of, the Author. The Cheap
Editions please me much by their accurate text, good type, tasteful binding,
and attractive general appearance. They ought to drive ^e inferior and in-
accurate editions out of the market."

London : HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row.

•!*■•-

f .t

V;.

*)i

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Scientific sophisms. A review of current theories concerning atoms, apes, and men"

See other formats