the　early　evolutionists　in　my　work；　〃Evolution；　Old　and　New；〃　first
  published　ten　years　ago；　and　not；　so　far　as　I　am　aware；　detected　in
  serious　error　or　omission。　　If；　however；　Mr。　Wallace　still　thinks　it
  safe　to　presume　so　far　on　the　ignorance　of　his　readers　as　to　say
  that　the　only　two　important　works　on　evolution　before　Mr。　Darwin's
  were　Lamarck's　Philosophie　Zoologique　and　the　〃Vestiges　of
  Creation；〃　how　fathomable　is　the　ignorance　of　the　average　reviewer
  likely　to　have　been　thirty　years　ago；　when　the　〃Origin　of　Species〃
  was　first　published？　　Mr。　Darwin　claimed　evolution　as　his　own
  theory。　　Of　course；　he　would　not　claim　it　if　he　had　no　right　to　it。
  Then　by　all　means　give　him　the　credit　of　it。　　This　was　the　most
  natural　view　to　take；　and　it　was　generally　taken。　　It　was　not；
  moreover；　surprising　that　people　failed　to　appreciate　all　the
  niceties　of　Mr。　Darwin's　〃distinctive　feature〃　which；　whether
  distinctive　or　no；　was　assuredly　not　distinct；　and　was　never　frankly
  contrasted　with　the　older　view；　as　it　would　have　been　by　one　who
  wished　it　to　be　understood　and　judge　upon　its　merits。　　It　was　in
  consequence　of　this　omission　that　people　failed　to　note　how　fast　and
  loose　Mr。　Darwin　played　with　his　distinctive　feature；　and　how
  readily　he　dropped　it　on　occasion。
  It　may　be　said　that　the　question　of　what　was　thought　by　the
  predecessors　of　Mr。　Darwin　is；　after　all；　personal；　and　of　no
  interest　to　the　general　public；　comparable　to　that　of　the　main
  issuewhether　we　are　to　accept　evolution　or　not。　　Granted　that
  Buffon；　Erasmus　Darwin；　and　Lamarck　bore　the　burden　and　heat　of　the
  day　before　Mr。　Charles　Darwin　was　born；　they　did　not　bring　people
  round　to　their　opinion；　whereas　Mr。　Darwin　and　Mr。　Wallace　did；　and
  the　public　cannot　be　expected　to　look　beyond　this　broad　and
  indisputable　fact。
  The　answer　to　this　is；　that　the　theory　which　Messrs。　Darwin　and
  Wallace　have　persuaded　the　public　to　accept　is　demonstrably　false；
  and　that　the　opponents　of　evolution　are　certain　in　the　end　to
  triumph　over　it。　　Paley；　in　his　〃Natural　Theology；〃　long　since
  brought　forward　far　too　much　evidence　of　design　in　animal
  organisation　to　allow　of　our　setting　down　its　marvels　to　the
  accumulations　of　fortunate　accident；　undirected　by　will；　effort　and
  intelligence。　　Those　who　examine　the　main　facts　of　animal　and
  vegetable　organisation　without　bias　will；　no　doubt；　ere　long
  conclude　that　all　animals　and　vegetables　are　derived　ultimately　from
  unicellular　organisms；　but　they　will　not　less　readily　perceive　that
  the　evolution　of　species　without　the　concomitance　and　direction　of
  mind　and　effort　is　as　inconceivable　as　is　the　independent　creation
  of　every　individual　species。　　The　two　facts；　evolution　and　design；
  are　equally　patent　to　plain　people。　　There　is　no　escaping　from
  either。　　According　to　Messrs。　Darwin　and　Wallace；　we　may　have
  evolution；　but　are　on　no　account　to　have　it　as　mainly　due　to
  intelligent　effort；　guided　by　ever　higher　and　higher　range　of
  sensations；　perceptions；　and　ideas。　　We　are　to　set　it　down　to　the
  shuffling　of　cards；　or　the　throwing　of　dice　without　the　play；　and
  this　will　never　stand。
  According　to　the　older　men；　cards　did　indeed　count　for　much；　but
  play　counted　for　more。　　They　denied　the　teleology　of　the　timethat
  is　to　say；　the　teleology　that　saw　all　adaptation　to　surroundings　as
  part　of　a　plan　devised　long　ages　since　by　a　quasi…anthropomorphic
  being　who　schemed　everything　out　much　as　a　man　would　do；　but　on　an
  infinitely　vaster　scale。　　This　conception　they　found　repugnant　alike
  to　intelligence　and　conscience；　but；　though　they　do　not　seem　to　have
  perceived　it；　they　left　the　door　open　for　a　design　more　true　and
  more　demonstrable　than　that　which　they　excluded。　　By　making　their
  variations　mainly　due　to　effort　and　intelligence；　they　made　organic
  development　run　on　all…fours　with　human　progress；　and　with
  inventions　which　we　have　watched　growing　up　from　small　beginnings。
  They　made　the　development　of　man　from　the　amoeba　part　and　parcel　of
  the　story　that　may　be　read；　though　on　an　infinitely　smaller　scale；
  in　the　development　of　our　most　powerful　marine　engines　from　the
  common　kettle；　or　of　our　finest　microscopes　from　the　dew…drop。
  The　development　of　the　steam…engine　and　the　microscope　is　due　to
  intelligence　and　design；　which　did　indeed　utilise　chance
  suggestions；　but　which　improved　on　these；　and　directed　each　step　of
  their　accumulation；　though　never　foreseeing　more　than　a　step　or　two
  ahead；　and　often　not　so　much　as　this。　　The　fact；　as　I　have　elsewhere
  urged；　that　the　man　who　made　the　first　kettle　did　not　foresee　the
  engines　of　the　Great　Eastern；　or　that　he　who　first　noted　the
  magnifying　power　of　the　dew…drop　had　no　conception　of　our　present
  microscopesthe　very　limited　amount；　in　fact；　of　design　and
  intelligence　that　was　called　into　play　at　any　one　pointthis　does
  not　make　us　deny　that　the　steam…engine　and　microscope　owe　their
  development　to　design。　　If　each　step　of　the　road　was　designed；　the
  whole　journey　was　designed；　though　the　particular　end　was　not
  designed　when　the　journey　was　begun。　　And　so　is　it；　according　to　the
  older　view　of　evolution；　with　the　development　of　those　living
  organs；　or　machines；　that　are　born　with　us；　as　part　of　the
  perambulating　carpenter's　chest　we　call　our　bodies。　　The　older　view
  gives　us　our　design；　and　gives　us　our　evolution　too。　　If　it　refuses
  to　see　a　quasi…anthropomorphic　God　modelling　each　species　from
  without　as　a　potter　models　clay；　it　gives　us　God　as　vivifying　and
  indwelling　in　all　His　creaturesHe　in　them；　and　they　in　Him。　　If　it
  refuses　to　see　God　outside　the　universe；　it　equally　refuses　to　see
  any　part　of　the　universe　as　outside　God。　　If　it　makes　the　universe
  the　body　of　God；　it　also　makes　God　the　soul　of　the　universe。　　The
  question　at　issue；　then；　between　the　Darwinism　of　Erasmus　Darwin　and
  the　neo…Darwinism　of　his　grandson；　is　not　a　personal　one；　nor
  anything　like　a　personal　one。　　It　not　only　involves　the　existence　of
  evolution；　but　it　affects　the　view　we　take　of　life　and　things　in　an
  endless　variety　of　most　interesting　and　important　ways。　　It　is
  imperative；　therefore；　on　those　who　take　any　interest　in　these
  matters；　to　place　side　by　side　in　the　clearest　contrast　the　views　of
  those　who　refer　the　evolution　of　species　mainly　to　accumulation　of
  variations　that　have　no　other　inception　than　chance；　and　of　that
  older　school　which　makes　design　perceive　and　develop　still　further
  the　goods　that　chance　provides。
  But　over　and　above　this；　which　would　be　in　itself　sufficient；　the
  historical　mode　of　studying　any　question　is　the　only　one　which　will
  enable　us　to　comprehend　it　effectually。　　The　personal　element　cannot
  be　eliminated　from　the　consideration　of　works　written　by　living
  persons　for　living　persons。　　We　want　to　know　who　is　whowhom　we　can
  depend　upon　to　have　no　other　end　than　the　making　things　clear　to
  himself　and　his　readers；　and　whom　we　should　mistrust　as　having　an
  ulterior　aim　on　which　he　is　more　intent　than　on　the　furthering　of
  our　better　understanding。　　We　want　to　know　who　is　doing　his　best　to
  help　us；　and　who　is　only　trying　to　make　us　help　him；　or　to　bolster
  up　the　system　in　which　his　interests　are　vested。　　There　is　nothing
  that　will　throw　more　light　upon　these　points　than　the　way　in　which　a
  man　behaves　towards　those　who　have　worked　in　the　same　field　with
  himself；　and；　again；　than　his　style。　　A　man's　style；　as　Buffon　long
  since　said；　is　the　man　himself。　　By　style；　I　do　not；　of　course；　mean
  grammar　or　rhetoric；　but　that　style　of　which　Buffon　again　said　that
  it　is　like　happiness；　and　vient　de　la　douceur　de　l'ame。　　When　we
  find　a　man　concealing　worse　than　nullity　of　meaning　under　sentences
  that　sound　plausibly　enough；　we　should　distrust　him　much　as　we
  should　a　fellow…traveller　whom　we　caught　trying　to　steal　our　watch。
  We　often　cannot　judge　of　the　truth　or　falsehood　of　facts　for
  ourselves；　but　we　most　of　us　know　enough　of　human　nature　to　be　able
  to　tell　a　good　witness　from　a　bad　one。
  However　this　may　be；　and　whatever　we　may　think　of　judging　systems　by
  the　directness　or　indirectness　of　those　who　advance　them；
  biologists；　having　committed　themselves　too　rashly；　would　have　been
  more　than　human　if　they　had　not　shown　some　pique　towards　those　who
  dared　to　say；　first；　that　the　theory　of　Messrs。　Darwin　and　Wallace
  was　unworkable；　and　secondly；　that　even　though　it　were　workable　it
  would　not　justify　either　of　them　in　claiming　evolution。　　When
  biologists　show　pique　at　all　they　generally　show　a　good　deal　of
  pique；　but　pique　or　no　pique；　they　shunned　Mr。　Spencer's　objection
  above　referred　to　with　a　persistency　more　unanimous　and　obstinate
  than　I　ever　remember　to　have　seen　displayed　even　by　professional
  truth…seekers。　　I　find　no　rejoinder　to　it　from　Mr。　Darwin　himself；
  between　1865　when　it　was　first　put　forward；　and　1882　when　Mr。　Darwin
  died。　　It　has　been　similarly　〃ostrichised〃　by　all　the　leading
  apologists　of　Darwinism；　so　far　at　least　as　I　have　been　able　to
  observe；　and　I　have　followed　the　matter　closely　for　many　years。　　Mr。
  Spencer　has　repeated　and　amplified　it　in　his　recent　work；　〃The
  Factors　of　Organic　Evolution；〃　but　it　still　remains　without　so　much
  as　an　attempt　at　serious　answer；　for　the　perfunctory　an