s compelled to conclude
that the doctrine of acquired characters is also dead.

(iii). The Biogenetic "Law."

In addition to the two forms of the theory above noted, Haeckel added
emphasis to these so-called biological proofs by putting forth a doctrine
that came to be called the biogenetic "law," even though it was nothing but
a hypothesis. It was called the recapitulation theory, because it was
imagined that the developing human embryo recapitulates or passes through
successive stages of the more mature forms of some of the lower animals.

Concerning this theory Dr. A. Weber, University of Geneva, Switzerland,
said in the "Scientific American Monthly" for February, 1921:

The critical comments of such men as O. Hertwig, Kiebel, and
Vialleton, indeed, have practically torn to shreds the
aforesaid fundamental biogenetic law. Its almost universal
abandonment has left considerably at a loss those
investigators who sought in the structures of organisms the
key to their remote origins or to their relationships.

So it would seem that if this form of the theory is utterly destitute of
proof, the whole biological foundation of the theory is gone.

It is perfectly in harmony with scientific testimony, therefore, that
Professor Price says concerning this phase of the theory:

The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at
the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological
evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these
hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does
modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been
right all the time.

If these men have borne faithful testimony to the situation as it now
exists in the biological realm, the only conclusion possible is that the
borrowed portion of Darwin's theory has also utterly collapsed.

It is passing strange, in view of these facts, that competent and scholarly
men of science should still cling to a theory so utterly discredited by
eminent scientists. Is it because they are determined to believe in
evolution in spite of such evidence to the contrary, or is it because there
is still left a foundation for the doctrine lying back of all this which
has not yet been disturbed, even though "the biological clues have all run
out," as Professor Price says they have?

The supposed evidence of geology, with its theories of uniformity and
successive ages, forms precisely