itself felt and from a new movement which this need starts and continues.

3. The development of the organs and their power of action is constant because of the use of these organs.

4. Everything which has been acquired, or changed in the individual during its life is preserved in the process of reproduction and transmitted to the new individuals which come from those that have undergone the changes.

Lamarck's general conception is simple. The creator endowed matter and life with its qualities. Nature is always creating the lower types. The simplest forms appear first and thenceforth there is a slow, continuous evolution which has taken enormous periods of time. All species shade into each other. The gaps are merely places where we have lost the intermediate forms. The changes are not caused by any scheme or design in nature. They result from the reaction to the environment. "Circumstances influence the forms of animals. But I must not be taken literally, for environment can effect no direct changes whatever upon the organization of animals." Yet on plants he thought direct environmental was effective and he was not entirely consistent with regard to animals. "But great changes in environment bring about changes in the habits of animals. Changes in their wants necessarily bring about parallel changes in their habits. If new wants become constant or very lasting, they form new habits, the new habits involve the use of new parts, or a different use of old parts, which results finally in the production of new organs and the modification of old This is the famous " use and disuse" theory and that of the "inheritance of acquired characters" so generally associated with his name. Now it is not to be forgotten that in Lamarck's time the knowledge of the actual world was pitifully small as compared to that we have today. His explanation seemed to meet the known facts. Moreover, opposition grew not out of the details of his scheme, but out of the hostility to any suggestion that might overthrow the belief in a special creation. Thus Cuvier called each of his works " a new folly."

Lamarck thought that the webbed feet of water birds had developed through their efforts to swim. The long neck of the giraffe was due to its stretching to reach the limbs of the trees generation after generation. Deer developed their limbs by the act of fleeing from enemies. Cattle produced horns by butting their heads together. Likewise the vestigial organs have degenerated because of failure to use them. Thus he would have explained the eyes of the mole, the blind salamander or fishes of the caves and the vermiform appendix in man.

Sometimes his explanations became absurd. "The snakes sprang from reptiles with four extremities; but having taken up the habit of moving along the earth and concealing themselves among bushes, their bodies, owing to repeated efforts to elongate themselves and to pass through narrow spaces, have acquired a considerable length out of all proportion to their width. Since long feet would have been very useless, and short feet would have been incapable of moving their bodies, there resulted a cessation of use of these parts, which has finally caused them to totally disappear, although they were originally a part of the plan of organization in these animals." As Osborn remarks, "Such crude illustrations certainly did not predispose his contemporaries in favor of his theory." 29

Poor and blind in his later years, Lamarck was ridiculed and opposed by the mighty Cuvier who believed in a series of special creations and attributed the disappearance of extinct form to cataclysms of nature. Lamarck understood the extinction of the lower forms, but thought that man must have destroyed such larger animals as the mammoth. Lamarck made little impression even on France. Not until after the middle of the century did he begin to win recognition as one of the great men of his day.

In the next generation there was comparatively little advance so far as the theory of evolution is concerned. Patrick Matthew in 1831 was the first to clearly state the idea of natural selection. The anonymous work "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" (1844), generally attributed to Robert Chambers, by accepting the evolutionary hypothesis aroused much comment. Meantime the botanists were approaching the new standpoint. Meckel and von Baer showed how similar all animals were in the embryonic stages. Rude flint implements of early man were discovered. The stage was being set for the entrance of a group of men destined to have an influence on human thought so great that even today one hardly dares attempt to measure it. The two men most responsible for the movement were Charles Darwin (18091882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913).

Darwin wrote in his "Naturalist's Voyage Round the World": "In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observations of the habits of plants and animals, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species." 30 At this time Darwin believed that species were separately created. Four years later he admits that he is "almost convinced that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable." He began to write in 1842 showing his work to the geologist Lyell and to Hooker. Though urged to publish he held back until in 1858 he was astonished to find that his very ideas had been independently worked out by Wallace in a paper sent by him to Darwin with a request that it be forwarded to Lyell if considered worthy. The upshot was that Wallace's paper, together with an abstract of Darwin's, was read under the title "On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Selection" at the meeting of the Linnæan Society, July 1, 1858. An abstract of Darwin's manuscript was published the next year (1859) under the title "The Origin of Species."

A terrific storm broke out in theological circles when the implications of the book were realized. "Cardinal Manning declared Darwinism to be a 'brutal philosophy, to wit, there is no God and the ape is our Adam.' Protestant and Catholic agreed in condemning it as "an attempt to dethrone God' as 'a huge imposture,' as 'tending to produce disbelief of the Bible,' and 'to do away with all idea of God,' as 'turning the Creator out of doors.' 'If,' said Dr. Duffield in the Princeton о. с., р. 132.

..

Review, 'the development theory of the origin of man shall, in a little while, take the place as doubtless it will - with other exploded scientific speculations, then they who accept it with its proper logical consequences will, in the life to come, have their portion with those who in this life, 'know not God and obey not the gospel of His son." Perhaps the most notable attack came from Samuel Wilberforce, then Bishop of Oxford, in the Quarterly Review of July, 1860. "It is,' said Huxley, in his review of Haeckel's "Evolution of Man," 'a production which should be bound in good stoute calf, or better, asses' skin, by the curious book collector, together with Brougham's attack on the undulatory theory of light when it was first propounded by Young.' The bishop declared 'the principle of natural selection to be absolutely incompatible with the word of God' and as 'contradicting the revealed relations of creation to its Creator.' " 31 "Inconsistent with the fulness of his glory: a dishonoring view of Nature." Another preacher said: "If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the whole framework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man, as we Christians know it, is a delusion and a snare." The Methodist Quarterly Review (April, 1871) said: "attempting to befog and pettifog the whole question; " " infidelity; " "sophistical and illogical." The American Church Review (July and October, 1865 and January, 1866) said: "If this hypothesis be true, then the Bible is an unbearable fiction then have Christians for nearly 2000 years been duped by a monstrous lie. Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the

...

...

...