Seventh Sitting

p. 167Professor Bioplasm (Re-called)

Cross-examination continued by Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Professor Bioplasm, you were good enough yesterday to admit the reality and the strength of the apostolic testimony to Christ’s resurrection: but you spoke of the conclusions of modern science forming an invincible barrier to your reception of that testimony?—Yes.

To what branch of modern science do you refer as presenting this invincible barrier?—A variety of sciences, I think.

Not all sciences?—No, not all sciences.

The science of chemistry, for example?—No.

Mathematics?—No, not mathematics, unless we take them as astronomically applied. I refer particularly to anthropological and biological science.

In what way do those sciences present a barrier to the reception of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?—Well, they teach us the gradual development of life by evolution during incalculable ages past, in such a way as to exclude the possibility of specific creation, or of such a miracle as the resurrection of Christ.

Are you sure of the theory of development by evolution?—As sure as we can be, of anything we have not seen.

Should you call biology and anthropology demonstrated sciences?—As near as we can come at demonstration in such matters.

p. 168 Near demonstration is not demonstration?—We cannot attain to absolute demonstration in the problems of a past development.

If there is an absence of absolute demonstration, is it not possible the theory of evolution may be a mistake?—Mistake is, of course, not impossible: but I think the theory is a fair induction from accumulated facts.

Are you aware that the originators of the theory are not agreed among themselves?—I am aware of some slight divergences.

Should you call a difference of opinion as to the beginning of life a slight divergence?—It depends upon how you view it. Men may substantially agree as to the cause of biological development and differ as to the start.

But is not the question of the start a vital question in its bearing upon the idea of a Starting Power?—Granted.

You are aware that Mr. Leschar Wind holds, as the only rational hypothesis, that God miraculously formed the first organisms, “the primeval parents of all other organisms,” and breathed into them the vital spark which constituted them living creatures, and that God therefore was the start of life?—I am aware that that is his view.

Professor Hawk Ill, on the other hand, rejects the idea or necessity for a God, or any other intelligent power in the universe, and holds that the primitive or first form of life, from which all other animals, including man, have sprung, arose by “spontaneous generation out of inorganic matter”?—Yes, that is Professor Hawk Ill’s idea, which, I may say, is an idea coming into general favour, as more scientific than Mr. Wind’s idea.

Should you call the denial of God a slight divergence from the recognition of God?—Of course, if you put it that way, the difference seems great.

Is not that the actual difference between Mr. Wind and Professor Hawk Ill?—I cannot deny it.

And yet Mr. Wind is the father of evolution, and Mr. Hawk Ill its popular expounder?—Yes; men will differ, as is proverbial.

If the two pillars of evolution are disagreed as to the initial principle of the system, do you not think it establishes p. 169 a strong doubt as to the soundness of the system?—The circumstance is to be deplored. It doubtless carries with it, to most people, the sort of feeling you refer to.

Are you aware that the system has been very roundly and thoroughly attacked in a work recently published,^a which is attracting a great deal of attention in America?—I have heard something of such a work.

Do you know that, in that work, the arguments of the evolutionists are overhauled in detail in a very thorough manner?—I have not read the work.

Are you aware that, in the opinion of many competent persons, including a number of scientific professors, that work hopelessly overthrows the whole evolutionist theory?—I suppose some people think so.

You say you have not read it?—I have not.

I should advise you to read it?—Perhaps I will.

Let me submit to you some of the points the author raises and urges—I may say with a vigour and spice quite phenomenal. You are presumably au fait with the subject sufficiently to defend the theory of evolution from attack?—I know something about it, of course.

I think you acknowledged to a learning in favour of Professor Hawk Ill’s version of evolution?—I am inclined to coincide with his views.

Very well; for the purposes of my cross-examination, we will take it that you make Professor Hawk Ill’s theory your own?—I think I need not be afraid to do so.

Then you would be prepared to maintain that life commenced upon earth by spontaneous generation?—I say such a hypothesis certainly seems the most probable in the present state of our information.

The idea of spontaneous generation is not very old?—No; the idea itself is older than the formulated theory. It did not at first obtain adherents on account of the composite structure of the simplest organisms then known.

What has happened to remove that difficulty?—The discovery of tiny, nearly organic, creatures, which have p. 170 been styled monera. They are the simplest of all known organisms, as well as the simplest of all imaginable organisms. They are mere lumps of pure albumen, without organs or heterogeneous parts. They are no larger than pins’ heads, and inhabit the bottom of the ocean. In what way has the discovery of the monera removed the difficulty lying in the way of spontaneous generation?—Because we here have a creature in which all traces of organization is wanting—a creature in which all the vital phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous formless matter. The organless simplicity of this creature makes it an easy matter to imagine its origin by spontaneous generation.

“Imagine!” you don’t bring imagination into science surely?—I use “imagine” for want of a better word.

But why should you imagine this creature originated by spontaneous generation?—Because only homogeneous organisms composed of one single substance could arise by spontaneous generation.

There is a little scientific dogmatism there, is there not?—I think not. All scientific schools are agreed that creatures of heterogeneous parts could not originate by spontaneous generation.

But why do you say homogeneous organisms could so originate?—That is the hypothesis.

It is a hypothesis out of which I hope to take the bottom before my cross-examination is done?—If you can do so legitimately, I shall be the last to complain. I only desire truth.

Do not suppose I cast a reflection?—I do not suppose it for a moment.

Now let us see: how do you know this moneron is composed of a single substance?—Because, on chemical analysis, it yields only albumen.

Can you distinguish between albumen and fibrine on chemical analysis?—To some extent.

Can you distinguish positively between albumen and fibrine in chemical analysis?—I am not quite sure as to the extent to which that discrimination can be carried.

Are you not aware that eminent physiological authorities p. 171 (Carpenter and Liebig, for example), have laid it down that no chemical difference exists by which albumen and fibrine can certainly be distinguished?—I have some memory to that effect.

Are you prepared to lay down a contrary doctrine, and to assert that there is a marked chemical distinction between these two substances?—I am not.

How can you be sure, then, that there is no fibrine in the constitution of the moneron?—I cannot, of course, be absolutely certain.

If not certain on that point, how can you be sure the moneron is a creature of a homogeneous or single substance?—We cannot, of course, be absolutely certain.

May there not be other substances besides fibrine in the constitution of the moneron?—I think not.

Does it contain water?—Of course. In all living bodies, without exception, there is a certain quantity of water.

Is it not a fact that all animals and all plants, in fact all organisms consist in great measure of water, combined in a peculiar manner with other substances?—I cannot take exception to that proposition.

Very well, if water as a vital ingredient combines with various substances, since there is water in the living moneron, why are you so sure that there are not other substances besides albumen and possibly fibrine in its constitution?—They have not been discovered.

Are you prepared to say that they are not there?—I do not believe they are there.

May they be there?—It does not become a scientific man to dogmatize.

You are prepared to assert that they are not there?—I am not prepared to go further than I have gone.

Very well, then, they may be there, since water is there, and if there, what becomes of the theory that the moneron, being of a single substance, may have spontaneously generated?—That is a matter for argument.

Well. so much for that. Now, you say that the moneron is a creature without organs?—Yes, it is itself an organism, but not in any way built up of distinct organs. It consists solely of a single chemical combination.

p. 172 You are quite sure it has no organs?—I think so.

Why?—Well, there the creature is; you can examine it under the microscope and no organs are visible.

Do you make the fact that no organs can be seen, a reason for the assumption that there are no organs?—It seems a reasonable assumption in the circumstances.

Are you aware that there are creatures with organs too small to be visible under the most powerful microscope?—I suppose there are.

And yet whose existence is recognized from the functions performed by the creature?—I suppose there are such cases.

The rotifer, for example, or wheel animalcule, whose head is finished off with a circle or crown of very small hairs, which bend in regular succession all round, with the effect of giving it the appearance of a revolving wheel?—I have heard of the rotifer.

Are you aware that that revolving wheel of hairs is only visible under a powerful microscope?—Yes; it cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Are you also aware that while the hairs are visible, no muscular or other organs are visible by which these hairs are bent?—I suppose that is the case.

As a scientific man, would you say that because no structural arrangement can be seen at the base of these minute hairs, by which their motion is produced, therefore there is no such arrangement?—I don’t suppose I should. The fact of the movement of the hairs may be taken as proof of the existence of an apparatus capable of producing the motion.

Quite so: very well, you say the moneron has no organs, because they are not visible. Does it not perform motions involving the use of organs?—The moneron performs motions of course.

Does it move itself?—Yes.

In what way?—It forms on its upper surface, shapeless, finger-like processes, or very fine radiated threads, which we call pseudo-podia, or false feet.

Does it eat?—It absorbs nutrition.

Does it grow?—Yes, it grows from a smaller to a larger size.

p. 173 Does it propagate?—It propagates, but it is by simple self-division. At a certain stage of its growth, a pinching-in takes place, contracting the middle of the globule on all sides, and finally leads to the separation of the two halves. Each half then becomes rounded off, and appears as an independent individual, which commences anew the simple course of vital phenomena of nutrition and propagation.

And do you mean gravely to maintain, Professor Bioplasm, that all this is done without organs?—No organs are apparent.

Neither is there a rotatory apparatus apparent in the rotifer. Do you think when the moneron moves by thrusting out its finger-like processes, as you have termed them, that there are no muscles or analagous organs to cause the projection to take place?—Something must cause the projection to take place, of course.

Can you conceive of the moneron growing by nutrition, without organs to assimilate the nutriment to its own being?—I have never thought of it in that way.

Can you conceive of propagation by self-division taking place without an apparatus, invisible to us though it may be, leading organically to such a consummate structural feat as breaking up a living creature into two, without destroying either?—I confess I had not thought of it in that way.

Is it not inevitable that the moneron, performing all these organic operations, must possess organs, though we have no lenses powerful enough to make them visible?—It would seem a reasonable conclusion, I confess.

Now, if the moneron be possessed of organs, it is “a creature of heterogeneous parts,” of course; and how then am I to understand your application of what you said was the universally accepted scientific postulate, that “no creature of heterogeneous parts could originate by spontaneous generation”?—There you place me in a difficulty.

Not wishing to press you too severely, let me pass to another point. You have said that scientists have been able to “imagine” the spontaneous generation of the moneron, on account of its simplicity of structure (though p. 174 we have seen that that simplicity of structure is by no means so simple as they have assumed)?—I have said so. The discovery of the moneron has imparted to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation a degree of probability which it lacked previously.

Very well, simple or complex, have you ever known a case of a moneron being spontaneously generated?—No.

Is it not a fact that experiments have been conducted with a view to test this matter, and that living forms will not generate in liquids from which all germs have been excluded?—I believe that is the fact. In fact, it is generally conceded that spontaneous generation is not now possible.

Why not?—Because the general conditions of life upon earth under which spontaneous generation is assumed to have taken place, are so entirely altered. Spontaneous generation, which now is perhaps no longer possible, may have taken place at a time when enormous masses of carbon impregnated the atmosphere before they were condensed into coal in the primary coal mountains.

“May have!” You don’t call that scientific, do you?—We are obliged to postulate possibilities in forming a hypothesis.

What can carbon have to do with it? Are you not aware that the theory requires that spontaneous generation should have taken place millions of years before the carboniferous period commenced?—My memory fails me a little on that point.

Does not Professor Hawk III date “the first and longest division of the organic history of the earth,” “from the first spontaneous generation to the end of the Silurian system of deposits”? He adds: “During this immeasurable space of time, which, in all probability was much longer than all the other four epochs taken together, the three most extensive of all the Neptunic systems of strata were deposited” (History of Creation, vol. ii., p. 9). Thus this immense period, at the beginning of which he assumes spontaneous generation to have taken place, ended millions of years before the carboniferous age began?—Yes; I had forgot that point; but I know p. 175 the same authority suggests the excessive presence of carbon in the air as a probable cause of spontaneous generation.

The excessive presence of carbon 50 millions of years before the carbon period began?—It would seem so.

Are you prepared to stand by that?—It is a little perplexing I admit. Still the conditions of life must have been different in these remote ages, and may have admitted of spontaneous generation which is impossible now.

Are you content to call that “demonstrated science,” and to make a nebulous, hypothetical, and uncertain theory, a reason for rejecting the evidence of Christ’s resurrection, which you admit cannot be set aside?—I think I did not exactly admit that.

Well, never mind; to return to the point, why do you assume that the conditions of life differed in these remote ages from those now prevailing upon the earth?—It is a reasonable assumption in view of the changes that have been in progress.

Are you not aware that there is evidence of the condition of life having been exactly the same in these primeval times as they are at present?—I should like to know it.

Are you not aware that species of fishes and molluscs, which lived long before the carboniferous period, in the Devonian, and the Silurian ages, not only continued to live all the way through the carboniferous period, but have continued to the present time without the slightest change in their organic structures?—Perhaps you can mention illustrations?

Yes; our still existing ganoids and numerous species of shell-fish?—I had overlooked the fact.

Do you doubt it?—I am not prepared to take positive ground.

Perhaps you will accept the evidence of Mr. Leschar Wind: “Some groups (of molluscs), as we have seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the present day . . . In the genus lingula, for instance, the species which have successively appeared at all ages must have been connected by an unbroken series of generations p. 176 from the lowest Silurian stratum to the present day”?—The authority is good.

Does it not amount to positive proof that the conditions of life, instead of being entirely different, have been exactly the same all the way down from the beginning of life upon earth, millions of years before the age of carbon began?—I am bound to admit the cogency of the argument.

The conditions have been the same all the time. I return to the question: why should spontaneous generation take place then and not now?—I simply cannot answer the question.

If we substitute special creation for spontaneous generation, the difficulty would vanish?—To a certain extent.

Altogether, wouldn’t it?—Perhaps, in a certain direction, but it might lead to difficulties in other directions.

Now let me take you a stage further. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the moneron was spontaneously generated, how do you connect the existence of the moneron with the development of species?—Our theory is, that once life had a start, it would perfect itself in the forms of its manifestation by a process of development through use. A process of natural selection would take place by the laws of inheritance. It is a slow process, but it acts surely. It accumulates slight successive variations from generation to generation, according to the necessities imposed by environment; so that simple forms of life would in process of time grow more complex, and lead to the diversification of species.

That is the theory?—That is the theory.

Do you think it is a theory substantiated by the facts?—I think so.

By all the facts?—By some of them.

How long, according to the theory, would it take a moneron to advance to a higher form of life?—It is impossible to tell.

How long ago is it since the original supposed spontaneous generation of monera took place?—We can only approximate roughly.

Can you approximate to a million or two of years?—It p. 177 must be countless millions of years since monera first spontaneously generated.

Countless millions?—I should say so.

There can be no doubt of that, can there?—No doubt, I think.

Very well, can you tell me whether there are any monera now?—Oh, yes.

Many?—I believe they are found in enormous numbers at the bottom of the ocean.

Is it not a fact that they are to-day the most numerous of all living creatures?—It is probable they are.

And I believe, after all these millions upon millions of years, they are still “the simplest of all imaginable organisms”?—Yes.

The same “one single substance” they were at the beginning of the Laurentian period, long before the carboniferous or coal age began?—The same.

This simple moneron, which your theory regards as “the parent of all other organisms,” continues as destitute of parts and organs, after existing countless millions of years, as when it was first ushered into being out of inorganic matter, as you assume?—That is the fact.

Well now, Professor Bioplasm, how do you account for the present existence of the moneron at all on your theory?—It has remained undifferentiated.

Ay, but the theory is that the improved descendants of any organic species in their gradual development towards a higher grade of structure, must invariably supplant and exterminate the unimproved or parent form, in the struggle for existence. Is not that so?—That is the doctrine of evolution.

It is the doctrine of evolution we are trying?—Yes.

Is it not laid down as a principle by all evolutionists that it is only by the extermination of the unimproved individuals, through “survival of the fittest,” that “natural selection” gradually advances to more perfect forms?—That I believe is the principle.

Evolutionists hold that “new and improved varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the older”?—I believe they do.

p. 178 Then I want you to explain why the monera, which you hold to be “the primeval parents of all other organisms,” have not been exterminated?—I have never addressed myself to the consideration of that problem.

Is it not a difficulty in the way of the theory?—It looks like it.

Can you explain, or suggest an explanation, or approximate to the suggestion of an explanation, in harmony with the theory of evolution, how it is that the very lowest organism,—the weakest, the most defenceless, the best adapted as the food of others, and consequently the most unfit for survival, should, instead of becoming “rarer and rarer, and finally extinct,” as the theory requires, exist in countless millions, while the thousands of its supposed varieties, which were unavoidably necessary for transmutation to higher species, should all have succumbed without a specimen remaining to indicate such transitional gradations?—I should require to give the question some thought before I could venture upon an answer.

Very well, I will take you to another part of the subject. Do you really believe, Professor Bioplasm, that all the complex forms of life now upon earth, originated with this pin-head sized globule of jelly you call the moneron?—That is the most recent suggestion as to the origin of life.

How do you conceive the process of development began?—By improvement in the development of the moneron, I apprehend.

Have you really succeeded in conceiving of the possibility of improvement in a pin-head sized globule of jelly, composed of a single substance, as you say, and lacking all organism as you assume?—I apprehend it is facts, and not conceptions, with which science deals.

But we are trying the facts—the alleged facts—by the conceptions: you recollect you admitted that supposed spontaneous generation countless ages ago, was largely a matter of conception—imagination, I think, you said?—Yes.

Very well, I want to see your conception, if possible. Does not the theory of variation and development of p. 179 species require the co-relation and interaction of various substances and organs in the creatures varied and developed?—Undoubtedly.

Then, how do you succeed in applying the idea of variation and development to a creature like the moneron, with no organs, and of a single substance?—We are obliged to assume the fact of such development without being able to define exactly the modus operandi.

What! assume the fact of such development in the presence of myriads of monera that have undergone no modification or development for countless ages?—Your question, I admit, has considerable pertinence. I am not able on the spur of the moment to meet it.

Let me direct your attention to another point. You are, of course, aware that the theory of evolution holds that development by natural selection can only work by inheritance?—Yes, that is generally held by evolutionists.

The founder of evolution has said, has he not, that “unless favourable variations be inherited by some, at least, of the offspring, nothing can be effected by natural selection” (Origin of Species p. 9)?—Yes.

He lays it down, does he not, that “natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications” (p. 75)?—Quite so.

Very well, how do you apply the law of development by inherited modifications, to a creature which has no heirs?—I do not quite understand you there.

You are aware that the moneron has no offspring?—You refer to the mode of propagation.

I do: is it not the fact that the moneron, at a certain stage, simply divides into two, after “pinching in,” and that the two halves grow each to the size of the one before it divided, and again divide?—That I believe to be the fact.

Then what I want to know is how such a creature could transmit improvements by the law of heredity. Inheritance implies parent and offspring, but when a moneron splits up, there is neither parent nor offspring, but simply a duplication of the original individual—each half being as much an essential and identical part of the original p. 180 moneron as the other; and how in that case could an improvement be transmitted?—I do not exactly follow the difficulty.

Well, supposing it possible for a moneron to take on an additional organ by some law of improvement, or the rudiments of one, when the splitting up moment came, would not the added organ be halved, and thus reduced at the very start?—I think I see your question.

Suppose it were two eyes, for example, the first division would give one eye to each half or both eyes to one half; and in either case, nothing would be done to extend the improvement to other individuals of the race. The improvement would remain and perish with the individual moneron in which it originated?—There is some force in that.

How is it possible then that the moneron can be “the primeval parent of all other organisms,” seeing that the mode of its propagation, by the self-division of its body, shuts the door against the possibility of improvement by transmission of inherited qualities?—You present a difficulty I confess I had not thought of.

Now, Professor Bioplasm, let me put before you the fundamental maxims of evolution, and see how they are affected by the facts elicited in your cross-examination. Will you admit that without natural selection, there can be no evolution or transmutation of one species into another?—Yes.

Will you admit that without the inheritance of variations in a species, there can be no natural selection?—Yes.

Will you admit that inheritance is impossible among monera, which propagate by the self-division of their bodies?—That is a new proposition to me, but I confess I do not see how to evade it.

Does it not follow that, as a scientific demonstration, monera cannot be “the primeval parents of organisms,” developed by inheritance?—I should require time to consider that sweeping conclusion. I admit its plausibility.

Would not the acceptance of that conclusion involve the overthrow of the entire theory of evolution?—I don’t know about that. There are other facts in Nature, quite p. 181 independent of the moneron, that seem to require that hypothesis.

Such as what?—Such as the anatomical resemblance and typical graduation of organic beings, as shown in the fossil record of the geological strata.

In what way does that necessitate the theory of evolution?—It shows a gradual improvement of species as ages went on, on what I might call a common groundplan.

Would not the gradual improvement of species upon a common plan be quite consistent with the special creation of each species?—That would be a miracle you see, therefore unscientific.

Do you call a miracle unscientific if proved?—Ah, if proved, that is the question.

Must there not have been a miracle at the start, if the theory of the Win Dar school of evolutionists be the true one?—As I have admitted, they assume the miraculous infusion of life to in a few original organisms.

Are you prepared to assert that that idea is an untenable one?—I have indicated pretty freely, I think, to what school I belong.

The spontaneous generation school?—Quite so.

But I think, too, you have admitted the shakiness, to say the least, of the spontaneous generation hypothesis?—I admit it is not a demonstrated hypothesis. From the nature of things, it cannot be demonstrated. On the other hand, it cannot be disproved.

I think you nearly admitted it was disproved by the objections I raised?—Your objections were pretty tough, I allow.

Probably, on a thorough consideration of them, you will admit they are fatal?—I don’t know, of course, what conclusion I may come to on a re-consideration of the subject.

Let us suppose you hold on to spontaneous generation, should you not consider that as wonderful as any miracle?—I don’t know.

What? the appearance of a living creature (however small and simple) with parts intelligently contrived to enable it to move, grow, and propagate without any intelligent power existing before it to contrive it: should you p. 182 not consider that very marvellous affair?—I admit that, putting it in that way, there is a certain amount of marvel about it, of course.

“Putting it in that way,” Professor Bioplasm: is that not the simple fact of the case, if your theory be correct, that a living creature was made, and nobody made it: that an intelligent contrivance of parts to fulfil functions came about without intelligence to contrive it: that organic life spontaneously generated, or came itself of and by itself, without any pre-existing life to initiate or give it form?—I admit it looks a little extraordinary.

Is it not quite extraordinary?—Well, perhaps it is.

Quite as extraordinary as any miracle—A miracle, you see, is unscientific; it is out of the range of experience.

Did you ever know of spontaneous generation occurring within the range of your experience?—No.

Did you ever know it occur within the experience of any other man?—No.

Did you ever hear of its occurring in the experience of any man anywhere, at any time?—I have admitted it is not possible now.

And yet you call it scientific—a thing that never occurred within known experience, which you admit cannot occur; which you think may have occurred certain millions of years ago; and yet against the occurrence of which, there are reasons and objections which you cannot answer; you call such a hypothesis scientific?—It is an induction of science.

That is, a suggestion, a guess by men who call themselves scientific. But miracle, of which the world has heard, which has been credibly testified in many cases, which is the only explanation of the system of things existing in Christendom, and which, even in the domain of Nature, the most eminent naturalists of the day hold to be the only satisfactory explanation of the start of life upon earth, you call that unscientific?—I cannot help the choice of terms which express my ideas.

Very well, it will be for the Jury to judge, Professor Bioplasm?—It will be for the Jury to judge, and of course, each man for himself.

p. 183 Quite so: I return to the question: Would not the gradual improvement of species, upon a common ground plan, as I think you described it, be quite consistent with the fact of the special creation of each species as it appeared?—It would not, of course, be absolutely inconsistent.

It would be characteristic of wisdom, would it not, to observe a common plan in the multiplication of varieties?—It might be so.

Can there be any doubt about it; why should wisdom vary for variation’s sake?—I don’t know what you mean by wisdom.

I mean the Eternal Power, in whatever form it may exist, from which all things have come?—We know nothing of such a power in science.

You must, Professor Bioplasm, recognize some sort of power, or force, or energy, as the antecedent of Nature?—I look at Nature in itself.

But you allow, I presume, that Nature did not always exist?—Not in its present condition.

Did it exist at all in those inconceivable ages past, when things had not begun to travel towards the present wonderful order and beauty manifest in the universe?—As a system of Nature it did not, of course, exist.

Very well, but something existed: because, if nothing existed, nothing could ever have come?—Force existed, I doubt not.

Do you know what force it?—I know it as a fact.

Do you know what it is in itself?—I admit that we cannot know it in that sense. It is unknowable.

Very well, whatever it is, you must recognize wisdom as its attribute in view of the system of order, and adaptation, and beauty that has come out of it?—I cannot, of course, demur to that, but wisdom is so essentially connected with the idea of personality that I cannot understand it as applied to the force of the universe.

Wisdom doubtless involves the idea of personality; and may not that force which exhibits such admirable wisdom in the concretion of itself, if I may so say, have a personal nucleus, and be, in fact, the illimitable extension p. 184 of that personal nucleus after the analogy of the irradiation of light?—That would be the idea of God at once.

Perfectly so; and what objection?—Well, I say it is not scientifically demonstrated. It is outside the range of scientific observation.

That I grant; but does it follow that it is inconsistent with scientific observation?—That is another matter.

Is it not the fact that the universe is too great for science to skim even in the most superficial way?—It is doubtless greater than we can conceive.

Is not human observation of the universe, and human capacity for reflection, too puny to allow of the faintest conception of the problem of its derivation and mode of subsistence?—I must admit the truthfulness of that observation.

Very well, returning to the point: wisdom is manifestly in the universe, though science cannot tell us how it acts; and that being so, my question is—is it not characteristic of that wisdom to work on one general plan?—That I cannot deny.

Then if that wisdom specifically created each species as the time for its appearance arrived, is it not to be expected that it would work on the plan of typical graduation on a common anatomical plan, and not introduce a new plan with each new species?—Of course, if it was so, it was so.

I am claiming that there is nothing in typical graduation of species inconsistent with the idea of specific creation?—But specific creation is unproved.

Never mind, if it is unproved, which I do not admit. I am showing there is no force in your contention that evolution is necessitated by the fact of a gradual perfection of species in the order of their occurrence in the geological strata. Is it not the fact that the species in the strata are all distinct, and that there is no such perfectly ascending chain of development as ought to exist on the hypothesis of the transmutation of one species into another?—I admit we have not yet completed all the links.

Have you completed any?—Not absolutely.

Can you show any perfect gradual shading off of one p. 185 species into another in the case of any single genus?—Not so perfect as we should like.

Can you show a perfection at all? Is it not the case that between the most closely allied species, there are gaps and breaks which would require ages of slow modifications on the evolution hypothesis to pass from one to the other?—I should be glad to be able to contradict you.

But you cannot?—Not so directly as I should like.

Is it not also the fact that each species found in the fossil deposits is found at its best when it first (or lowest down) occurs in the stratum where it is found?—That of course is the well-known fact.

Is that consistent with the idea of a gradual transmutation from a prior species to a higher and higher state of development?—It may look the other way a little.

Is it not more consistent with the idea that each species was specially created when the time arrived for its introduction?—I must allow it agrees with that idea.

Is it not perfectly consistent with that idea? Nay, does it not distinctly point to that conclusion, and exclude the hypothesis of a gradual development to a more perfect form?—I know that is the use made of the fact by the opponents of evolution.

A legitimate use you must allow?—I have no doubt they think so.

Have you anything else to urge on behalf of evolution?—Well, in fact, there is a great deal to be urged that I should think you cannot wish me to go into. There are facts connected with embryology and rudimentary organs, and reversions—curious and interesting facts, all tending more or less to establish the hypothesis of evolution. In fact, they place the hypothesis beyond doubt in my mind.

I could follow you in these facts, Professor, and dispose of them as effectually as I think you feel I have done in the case of spontaneous generation?—I should like to see it done, for I only desire truth.

I should recommend you to read Mr. Hall’s book (The Problem of Human Life), to which I have already referred, and whose guidance I have more or less followed in this cross-examination. He goes thoroughly into all p. 186 these points, and in the most effectual manner, as I think, refutes the evolutionist argument upon all of them. Not only so, but he raises quite a host of insurmountable objections to that hypothesis in detail?—I shall take an early opportunity of reading the book.

I think you will find that “the invincible scientific difficulties” you spoke of in the early part of your examination, all disappear, and that you are at perfect liberty to accept the evidence of Christ’s resurrection without feeling that you are coming into collision with truth in any other direction?—I should be glad to find myself in that position: for I freely admit that the doctrines of evolution deprive us of the comfort of those personal hopes which are doubtless such a solace where they can be reasonably entertained.

Re-examined by Mr. Dontwanto Believeanyhow: You don’t admit, Professor Bioplasm, that my friend has overthrown your evolutionistic positions?—No, I only wish I could. I admit he has raised some good points.

Good points can be raised against anything?—I suppose so.

There are always two sides to every case, as the saying is?—Quite so.

You have no doubt in your own mind that the moneron came into existence by spontaneous generation, and that from the moneron have sprung all other forms of life upon earth?—That is our theory.

Including man?—Including man.

And that consequently the cosmogony of the Hebrew Scriptures is a piece of pure speculation?—I have been accustomed for some time to think so.

And that consequently the idea of the resurrection of Christ, which is bound up with it, is an impossible idea?—That would follow.

Whatever amount of evidence may be brought forward in its support?—No amount of evidence can, of course, prove a mythical idea to be true.

p. 187 My friend made much of the fact that the moneron exists in extensive numbers at the present day?—He laid some stress on that circumstance.

I presume it presents no difficulty to your mind?—I have not been in the habit of regarding it as a difficulty.

My friend asked why they hadn’t developed into a higher form; I presume the explanation, of course, would be, that—ah—the developing influence of—ah—favourable environment—did not come into play in those cases?—That is the explanation put forward by the evolutionist theory.

You consider it a perfectly satisfactory explanation?—Well, so far as it goes, no doubt it is satisfactory.

The others that gradually developed into molluscs and other invertebrate creatures, and then into the various classes of vertebrates,—fishes, alligators, lions, giraffes, hippopotami, elephants, dogs, monkeys, man, and such like—they did so through the favourable effects of appropriate environment?—That is the theory.

And you have no doubt about the theory?—I have not before to-day entertained much doubt.

The theory is entertained by a great many respectable people?—Yes.

And is, in fact, likely to become universal?—The appearances have been that way.

And you do not doubt that the appearances will be realized?—I do not know.

I do not know that I need put any further questions to you. We are exceedingly obliged to you for your attendance here to-day.

Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My Lord, that is the case for the plaintiffs. It might be convenient were I to draw the case to a focus, so to speak, in a few remarks at this stage; but I prefer to defer doing so till after my friend shall have developed the case for the defence.

Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: My Lord, you will not expect me at this hour to commence my address to the p. 188 Court on behalf of the defendants. It will probably be agreeable to your Lordship to adjourn.

His Lordship: Your speech will probably take some time.

Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I have a considerable amount of ground to travel over, but I will be as concise as I consistently can with my duty to the defendants.

His Lordship: Very well; we will adjourn.

The Court adjourned.