Part II

PART II[104].

[104] In the original MS. the heading is: Part III.; but Part II. is clearly intended; for details see the Introduction. I have not been able to discover where § IV. ends and § V. begins.

§§ IV. & V. [[ON THE EVIDENCE FROM GEOLOGY.]]

I may premise, that according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads of organisms peopling this world have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. As we know nothing of the [[illegible]] will of a Creator,--we can see no reason why there should exist any relation between the organisms thus created; or again, they might be created according to any scheme. But it would be marvellous if this scheme should be the same as would result from the descent of groups of organisms from [certain] the same parents, according to the circumstances, just attempted to be developed.

With equal probability did old cosmogonists say fossils were created, as we now see them, with a false resemblance to living beings[105]; what would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved [[not]] according to the law of gravitation, but from the Creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit? I believe such a proposition (if we remove all prejudices) would be as legitimate as to admit that certain groups of living and extinct organisms, in their distribution, in their structure and in their relations one to another and to external conditions, agreed with the theory and showed signs of common descent, and yet were created distinct. As long as it was thought impossible that organisms should vary, or should anyhow become adapted to other organisms in a complicated manner, and yet be separated from them by an impassable barrier of sterility[106], it was justifiable, even with some appearance in favour of a common descent, to admit distinct creation according to the will of an Omniscient Creator; or, for it is the same thing, to say with Whewell that the beginnings of all things surpass the comprehension of man. In the former sections I have endeavoured to show that such variation or specification is not impossible, nay, in many points of view is absolutely probable. What then is the evidence in favour of it and what the evidence against it. With our imperfect knowledge of past ages [surely there will be some] it would be strange if the imperfection did not create some unfavourable evidence.

[105] This passage corresponds roughly to the conclusion of the Origin, see Ed. i. p. 482, vi. p. 661.

[106] A similar passage occurs in the conclusion of the Origin, Ed. i. p. 481, vi. p. 659.

Give sketch of the Past,--beginning with facts appearing hostile under present knowledge,--then proceed to geograph. distribution,--order of appearance,--affinities,--morphology &c., &c.

Our theory requires a very gradual introduction of new forms[107], and extermination of the old (to