Transcribed from the [1885?] Elliot Stock edition by DavidPrice,
BY
Rev. EDWARD HOARE, M.A.
VICAR OFTUNBRIDGE WELLS, AND HONORARY CANON OF CANTERBURY.
Reprinted from The Churchman.
LONDON:
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
Price Twopence.
It may appear a very rash thing forany person who does not claim to be a man of science to presumeto give an opinion on any of the theories of scientificmen. But there is a vast difference between the facts ofscience and the theories suggested for their explanation. The facts are, as it were, the property of theinvestigators. The investigators have a power ofinvestigation which we outsiders have not, and it would be follyfor us who have not that power to presume to call in questiontheir information. But it is a very different matter withthe theories either founded on these facts or invented to explainthem. When science has given us the facts common-sense candiscuss the theories founded on them; and, without presuming tocall in question the ascertained results of scientificinvestigation, any person of ordinary intelligence may form hisown opinion as to the conclusions derived from the knownfacts. The scientific men know the facts, and we do not;but, when they have told us the facts, we can think as well asthey. This point was exceedingly well put by Canon Garbettat the Norwich Church Congress in 1865. He said:“Beyond a certain point the conclusions and arguments ofthe man of science cease to be exclusively his own, and becomethe common property of all men. All argument rests oncommon principles, and when once the facts of the case areclearly ascertained, any man who is trained to reason correctlyis competent to judge of them.” Again: “Let theman of science,” said Canon Garbett, “reign supremewithin his own sphere, and let none but those trained in the sameschool and learned in the same craft venture to dispute with himas he gathers his facts and generalizes his rules. But whenall this is done, and he proceeds to reason, then it isdifferent. He steps out of his special department into asphere open to all men alike. Tell me what your facts are,and if I sufficiently master them I am as competent to judge ofthe validity of the conclusions drawn from them as the man ofscience himself.”
There is scarcely any subject to which this principle appliesmore completely than it does to Evolution; for what is called“the doctrine of Evolution” is only a theory. It is not a collection of facts, but a theory which some of itswarmest p.3advocates—as, e.g., ProfessorDrummond—declare to be “still unproved.” [3] While, therefore, we fullyrecognise that it would be the utmost folly “to debate apoint of natural history with Darwin, or a question ofcomparative anatomy with Owen,” we may, by the aid ofcommon-sense, form an opinion possibly as sound at theirs on theunproved theory which has been founded on the ascertained factswhich those great investigators have placed within ourreach. This is all that I would attempt to do in thepresent paper. I do not propose to call in question asingle fact ascertained by men of science. All that I wouldventure to do is to exercise the ordinary powers of