Wearedisposedtorankthederivativehypothesisinitsfullnesswiththenebularhypothesis, andtoregardbothasallowable, asnotunlikelytoprovetenableinspiteofsomestrongobjections, , ifanytherebe,whoregardthederivativehypothesisassatisfactorilyproved, , must, wethink, haveimperfectorveryprejudicedconceptionsofthefactsconcernedandofthequestionsatissue.
Wearenotdisposednorpreparedtotakesidesfororagainstthenewhypothesis, andso, perhaps,, ; some, asincongruouswithotherviewsofthesamewriters; others, whencarriedout, asincompatiblewithgeneralexperienceorgeneralbeliefs, andthereforeasprovingtoomuch;stillothers, asprovingnothingatall; sothat, onthewhole, , ifitbefoundthatthenewhypothesishasgrownuponourfavorasweproceeded, ; butsomeoftherefutationsofitgiveusmoreconcernthanthebookitselfdid.
Theseremarksapplymainlytothephilosophicalandtheologicalobjectionswhichhavebeenelaboratelyurged, , indeed, roundlydenouncesthebookasatheistical, , onthecontrary, scoutsallsuchobjections—aswellhemay,sinceherecordshisbeliefin "acontinuouscreativeoperation," aconstantlyoperatingsecondarycreationallaw," throughwhichspeciesaresuccessivelyproduced;andheemitsfaint, butnotindistinct, glimmeringsofatransmutationtheoryofhisown; sothatheisequallyexposedtoallthephilosophicalobjectionsadvancedbyAgassiz, andtomostofthoseurgedbytheotherAmericancritics, againstDarwinhimself.
