Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 22.djvu/138

128 he has made and described, the author concludes, at the end of his work, that leaving out of consideration the Eastern, or navigable, district, the topography of the region is very favorable for power. The rivers have steep declivities, and often cataracts or rapids of considerable magnitude. The superior wooded condition of the country and the deep, pervious soil tend to make the flow of the streams constant, though it is, perhaps, more variable than that of the streams of New England and the northern part of the Middle States. The Southern streams, however, enjoy a greater rain-fall than the Northern ones. The beds of the streams are everywhere favorable for the foundation of dams, and the banks are generally suitable for the construction of canals and buildings at the points where the water-powers occur. The chief advantage in the water-powers in the South lies in their freedom from ice. On the whole, the author believes that he is justified in asserting, from a purely technical point of view, that the advantages for the utilization of waterpower in the Southern Atlantic States "are, in many respects, as good as could be desired."

written from an orthodox point of view, and strictly "A Companion to the Logic of Christian Evidences," this is a very fair book, liberal in its views, agreeable in its tone, and instructive in its treatment. It is dedicated to Professor Asa Gray, with a pleasant reference to his "Discussions of Natural Theology," which are well known to be "Darwinian" in character, and the volume might perhaps have been more appropriately entitled "Studies in Darwinism." At any rate, it is throughout mainly a discussion of the group of topics that are at present prominently associated with Darwin's name. The author does not avow himself to be a Darwinian, and hardly goes further than to demand that the new theories of development shall be treated in future with more candor and consideration than they have hitherto received, he aims to state the Darwinian arguments with justice, and he draws upon a wide and critical reading of its adverse literature for the most effective arguments upon the other side. We regard his book as chiefly valuable for the fullness and variety of its quotations bearing upon the general subject.

But it seems to us that the antagonist arguments brought forward acquire a factitious force from the author's mode of representing them, although we do not accuse him in this of intentional unfairness. But he nevertheless commits the grave error of identifying "Darwinism" with evolution, and, by bringing forward all that has been objected to the principle of "natural selection," the accumulated illustrations of difficulties, and Mr. Darwin's own retreat from the claims he made at first, a case is seemingly made out against evolution, which appears, to say the least, very embarrassing. But it can not be too often reiterated in these times that Darwinism is not evolution, and that to assume them as the same thing can only lead to confusion and mischievous error. There can be no greater mistake than to suppose that the proofs of evolution are in any large sense dependent upon the proofs of natural selection, or that any restriction of the range and operation of this principle involves the validity of the evolutionary theory. Mr. Darwin has never attempted either the broad investigation or the comprehensive discussion of the law of evolution; and, by confining himself mainly to the consideration of "Darwinism," Mr. Wright virtually evades the larger problem, and to that degree his book is an inadequate representation of the present relations of science and religion.

Theologian as he is, he refers with disparagement to the a priori method by admonishing the reader to "note carefully the character of Mr. Darwin's reasoning as distinguished from the multitude of a priori evolutionists who have espoused his cause." Perhaps the author would object to the a priori use of mathematics in its application to physics or of any principles inductively established to the interpretation of phenomena; but, however that may be, he offers a very lame pretext for not dealing with the subject of evolution as an elaborated system of facts and principles of