PART III.—Theories contrasted.—Early Arguments against Darwinism.—Philosophical and Theological Objections—Theory may be theistic.—Final Cause not excluded.—Cause of Variation unknown.—Three Views of Efficient Cause compatible with Theism.—Agassiz's Objections of a Philosophical Nature.—Minor Objections.—Conclusion
Reading edition
ARTICLE IV
SPECIES AS TO VARIATION, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, AND SUCCESSION
Alphonse De Candolle's Study of the Oak Genus.—Variability of the Species.—Antiquity.—A Common Origin probable.—Dr. Falconer on the Common Origin of Elephants—Variation and Natural Selection distinguished.—Saporta on the Gradation between the Vegetable Forms of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary.—Hypothesis of Derivation more likely to be favored by Botanists than by Zoologists.—Views of Agassiz respecting the Origin, Dispersion, Variation, Characteristics, and Successive Creation of Species contrasted with those of De Candolle and others—Definition of Species—Whether its Essence is in the Likeness or in the Genealogical Connection of the Individuals composing a Species
ARTICLE V
SEQUOIA AND ITS HISTORY: THE RELATIONS OF NORTH AMERICAN TO NORTHEAST ASIAN AND TO TERTIARY VEGETATION
Age and Size of Sequoia.—Isolation.—Decadence.—Related Genera.— Former Distribution.—Similarity between the Flora of Japan and that of the United States, especially on the Atlantic Side.—Former Glaciation as explaining the Present Dispersion of Species.—This confirmed by the Arctic Fossil Flora of the Tertiary Period.—Tertiary Flora derived from the Preceding Cretaceous.—Order and Adaptation in Organic Nature likened to a Flow.—Order implies an Ordainer
ARTICLE VI
THE ATTITUDE OF WORKING NATURALISTS TOWARD DARWINISM
General Tendency to Acceptance of the Derivative Hypothesis noted.—Lyell, Owen, Alphonse De Candolle, Bentham, Flower, Ailman.— Dr. Dawson's "Story of the Earth and Man" examined.—Difference between Scientific Men and General Speculators or Amateurs in the Use of Hypotheses
ARTICLE VII
EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY
Writings of Henslow, Hodges, and Le Conte examined.—Evolution and Design compatible.—The Admission of a System of Nature, with Fixed Laws, concedes in Principle all that the Doctrine of Evolution requires.—Hypotheses, Probabilities, and Surmises, not to be decried by Theologians, who use them, perhaps, more freely and loosely than Naturalists.—Theologians risk too much in the Defense of Untenable Outposts
ARTICLE VIII
"WHAT IS DARWINISM?"
Dr. Hodges Book with this Title criticised.—He declares that Darwinism is Atheism, yet its Founder a Theist.—Darwinism founded, however, upon Orthodox Conceptions, and opposed, not to Theism, but only to Intervention in Nature, while the Key-note of Dr. Hedge's System is Interference.—Views and Writings of St. Clair, Winchell, and Kingsley adverted to
ARTICLE IX
CHARLES DARWIN: SKETCH ACCOMPANYING A PORTRAIT IN "NATURE"
Darwin's Characteristics and Work as a Naturalist compared with those of Robert Brown.—His Illustration of the Principle that "Nature abhors Close Fertilization. "—His Impression upon Natural History exceeded only by Linnaeus.—His Service in restoring Teleology to Natural History
ARTICLE X
INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS
Classification marks Distinctions where Nature exhibits Gradations.— Recovery of Forgotten Knowledge and History of what was known of Dionzea, Drosera, and Sarracenia.
ARTICLE XI
INSECTIVOROUS AND CLIMBING PLANTS
Review of Darwin's Two Works upon these Subjects—No Absolute Marks for distinguishing between Vegetables and Animals.—New observations upon the Sundews or Droseras.—Their Sensitiveness, Movements, Discernment of the Presence and Appropriation of Animal Matter.—Dionaea, and other Plants of the same Order.—Utricularia and Pinguicula.—Sarracenia and Nepenthes.—Climbing Plants; the Climbing effected through Sensitiveness or Response to External Impression and Automatic Movement.—Capacities inherent in Plants generally, and apparently of no Service to them, developed and utilized by those which climb.—Natural Selection not a Complete Explanation