He is rash, evidently
well satisfied with himself, very possibly mistaken, and just one of
those persons who (without intending it) are more apt to mislead than
to lead the few people that put their trust in them. A few will
always follow them, for a strong faith is always more or less
impressive upon persons who are too weak to have any definite and
original faith of their own. The second writer, however, assumes a
very different tone. His arguments to all practical intents and
purposes run as follows:-
Old fallacies are constantly recurring. Therefore Darwin's theory is
a fallacy.
They come again and again, like tunes in a barrel-organ. Therefore
Darwin's theory is a fallacy.
Hallam made a mistake, and in his History of the Middle Ages, p. 398,
he corrects himself. Therefore Darwin's theory is wrong.
Dr. Darwin in the last century said the same thing as his son or
grandson says now - will the writer of the article refer to anything
bearing on natural selection and the struggle for existence in Dr.
Darwin's work? - and a foolish nobleman said something foolish about
monkey's tails. Therefore Darwin's theory is wrong.
Giordano Bruno was burnt in the year 1600 A.D.; he was a Pantheist;
therefore Darwin's theory is wrong.
