SCIENTIFIC SOPHISMS.
"The true Shekinah is yian"Chrysostoni.
"If a man is a materialist, we Germans think he is not edu-
cated ' 'Prof. Tkoluck*
"It is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible." Prof*
SCIENTIFIC SOPHISMS.
A REVIEW OF CURRENT THEORIES
CONCERNING ATOMS, APES, AND MEN.
SAMUEL WAINWRIGHT, D.D.,
AUTHOR OF
" CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY," " THE MODERN AVEKNUS," ETC.
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXXXI.
Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frame, and London,
CONTENTS.
PAGE
ANALYTICAL OUTLINE ...... vii
I.
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH i
II.
EVOLUTION n
III.
"A PUERILE HYPOTHESIS" 33
IV.
" SCIENTIFIC LEVITY 7; 45
V.
A HOUSE OF CARDS 61
VI.
SOPHISMS 75
VII.
PROTOPLASM 99
VIII.
THE THREE BEGINNINGS 149
vi Contents.
IX.
PAGE
THE THREE BARRIERS 169
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
viii Analytical Outline of Contents.
Development :
Mr. Darwin's " view " ; and his Opinion.
His " opinion " may be questioned ; and
His " view" lias 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
Condemned by Prof. Mivart.
CHAPTER IV.
"SCIENTIFIC LEVITY."
AGNOSTIC EVOLUTION:
An Unverified Hypothesis
Based on two subordinate hypotheses
Equally unverified.
(1) 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
b
x Analytical Outline of Contents.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION is
" An astounding hypothesis ;J (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.' 1
Analytical Outline of Contents. xi
II. BIOGENESIS :
Harvey, and Francesco RedL
Paradoxical position of Mr. Huxley.
(1) As a Biogenist, he holds that
" All living matter has sprang 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
(1) 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
(<5) " By an intellectual necessity
I cross the boundary."
(5) He tells us of
(a) "The chasm between the two classes
of phenomena."
(d} 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 Modern 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, Colin, 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."
E'g.i "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."
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. (CO*), (H 2 0), and (NIL,) cannot, by any combination,
be bi ought to represent
C^IIogNjOj,), 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
(/.<\, the formation of water and of protoplasm)
4(1 There is no Rsembl.mce whatever,"
V. The proposition that Life is a product of Protoplasm
Is denumslrably untrue.
VI. The proposition that life ih a property of Protoplasm
Is equally untrue,
(Contrast between "tiquosity" and "vitality,"}
VII. Martimis Scriblcrus Kcdivivus.
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 anahmv has two n-ft'renrpy. ant] Pnk m bnlli
xiv Analytical Outline of Contents.
X. The 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."
XL 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 is 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
modern 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. Elam'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 state 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.
When these assumptions have been granted :
That the Nebulosity was real
That it was Primitive
That its constituent 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 r
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.
" Of 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
of giving 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, as such, it is PECULIAR.
The lowest Human Brain has the latent franchise
of
Progressive Reason :
All other Brains have the rigid circumscription of
Unprogressive Instinct.
No brute is susceptible of Human Culture j
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. TyndalPs 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 kind.
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 :
s ' A series of forms graduating insensibly
From some ape-like creature
To man as he now exists." But
(i. ) 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 Haeckel's
" 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-quo^- 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 MUNDI.
"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,"
z.&, 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 Raymond'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-born 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 -wfiat?
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.
#7tfisit? and Whence?
" 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. 33 (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 pcrcdve.
But ' 'JEveiy house is builded by some man 3> :
And
"IlB 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. JJ
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 modern 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 a gtw, 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.
,3
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." l
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 !'" 1
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 u 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." 3
" 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/ 7 in The
Fortnightly RwieW) vol. xxii. New series, p. 52. Vide
infnl: Appendix, Note A.
~ Prof. Tyndall : " Science and Man," in The Fort-
nightly Review, vol. xxii. New scries, 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
flics of time ' have come to the front through
almost endless stages of promotion from lower
to higher forms of life." l
"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 3 He is " unstable
and weak," s " a brawler and a clown." *
1 Prof. Tyndall : " Science and Man," in The Fort-
nightly Review r , vol. xxii. New series, p. 61 1.
2 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. Elam, "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."
3 Prof. Tyndall's "Address delivered at Belfast."
Longmans, 1874, p. 63.
4 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 pans asinonmi 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 coelestibus irse ?
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 .,
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 msignifi-
c
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." l 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
1 " Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.'s Ships
Adventure and Beagle" 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." 3 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."
1 " Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.'s Ships
Adventure and Beagle? London, 1 839. Vol. iii. pp. 399, 400.
2 Ibid.) p. 212.
2O 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 r
of creative acts, or, abandoning them, let us
radically change our notions of Matter." x
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." 3 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
1 " Address delivered before the British Association at
Belfast." LongmanSj 1874, pp. 53, 54.
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." 1
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." 3
And with this Professor Tyndall agrees :
"Without verification a theoretic conception is
1 "Address," ut sup., p. 38.
2 "Lay Sermons." Macmillan, 1871, p. 18.
a mere figment of the Intellect." Torricelli,
Pascal, and Newton were distinguished by their
" welding of rigid logic to verifying fact. 3 ' " 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." l " There is no genius so gifted as not
to need control and verification." 2
What then becomes of "the Abraham of
scientific men " ? In the " Origin of Species "
Mr. Darwin tells us repeatedly, 3 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," 4 by another equally candid :
1 "Fragments of Science." Longmans, 1871, pp. 59,
62.
2 Ibid.) p. in.
3 See especially, (First Edition,) p. 189, where, after
attempting to explain the origin 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.
4 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." 1
It is to be observed, however, that the " Evo-
1 "Address at Buffalo," August 25th. Reported in
The Times of Sept. 14, 1876.
25
lution " of which Mr. Huxley makes this affirm-
ation, is something very different 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/ 1 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 alfeady
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, i.e. 9 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 : became the root of the Anne-
G
82 Scientific Sophisms.
lida, 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 Mollusca." 1
Many persons will agree with Mr. Huxley so
far as to admit that Professor Haeckel is not
destitute either of "sound knowledge/ 3 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,
1 "Critiques and Addresses. " Macmillan, 1873, pp.
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 miist have acquired them or they could
never have possessed them ; and they must
have possessed them, or they could not have
become animal Monera ; and they must have
become animal Monera, for without them
the theory breaks down, and the existence of
the animal world could be accounted for
only by admitting the 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! 1
" 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 Monera, 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, 1
" while admitting that there is no experimental
1 " Critiques and Addresses. 33 Macmillan, 1873, p. 304.
Sophisms. 8 5
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:' 5
while spontaneous generation is at best an
" assumption " of which its most uncompromis-
ing advocate admits that l( 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 Abiogcnesis, 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." - 1
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,
1 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
1 "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." l
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-
1 " 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." l 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," 2
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 ? " 3
This conclusive question is suggestive of
1 " Critiques and Addresses," p. 239.
2 " Fragments of Science." Sixth Edition (1879), vol. ii.
p. 51. 3 Ibid.
59
another : " Who will set limits to the possible
play of Professor Tyndall's scientific imagina-
tion ?" Why should a cooling 1 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 ? " l
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
1 " Beginnings of Life," Pref. p. x.
90 Scientific Sophisms.
known of him Is that his " progenitors " " could
be not called human." l How carne 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 lias 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 " observation
and experiment," how is it possible that
"theories which He 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 He within and not
beyond the pale of experience.
u The porter sits down on the weight which he bore,"
1 Professor Tyndall's (Birmingham Address) " Science
and Man," p. 6n.
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." 1
1 " Belfast Address," p. 55.
92 Scientific Sophisms.
This "potency" of matter, then, when dis-
cerned at all, is discerned only
