have been taken to heart too much by naturalists; in
so far, at least, as concerns the question of the origin of species.

The new biological orthodoxy behaves just as the old biological
orthodoxy did. In the days before Darwin, those who occupied themselves
with the phenomena of life, passed by with unobservant eyes the
multitudinous facts which point to an evolutionary origin for plants and
animals; and they turned deaf ears to those who insisted on the
significance of these facts. Now that they have come to believe in this
evolutionary origin, and have at the same time accepted the hypothesis
that natural selection has been the sole cause of the evolution, they
are similarly unobservant of the multitudinous facts which cannot
rationally be ascribed to that cause; and turn deaf ears to those who
would draw their attention to them. The attitude is the same; it is only
the creed which has changed.

But, as above implied, though the protest of the Duke of Argyll against
this attitude is quite justifiable, it seems to me that many of his
statements cannot be sustained. Some of these concern me personally, and
others are of impersonal concern. I propose to deal with them in the
order in which they occur.

* * * * *

On page 144 the Duke of Argyll quotes me as omitting "for the present
any consideration of a factor which may be distinguished as primordial;"
and he represents me as implying by this "that Darwin's ultimate
conception of some primordial 'breathing of the breath of life' is a
conception which can be omitted only 'for the present.'" Even had there
been no other obvious interpretation, it would have been a somewhat rash
assumption that this was my meaning when referring to an omitted factor;
and it is surprising that this assumption should have been made after
reading the second of the two articles criticised, in which this factor
omitted from the first is dealt with: this omitted third factor being
the direct physico-chemical action of the medium on the organism. Such a
thought as that which the Duke of Argyll ascribes to me, is so
incongruous with the beliefs I have in many places expressed that the
ascription of it never occurred to me as possible.

Lower down on the same page are some other sentences having personal
implications, which I must dispose of before going into the general
question. The Duke says "it is more than doubtful whether any value
attaches to the new fact