vegetables too, might have come from one and the same primitive type,
from one and the same living cellule. This supposes that there was at
the beginning but one single species, an elementary and very slightly
defined organization, from which all that lives descended in the way of
regular generation. The oak and the wild boar which eats its acorn, the
cat and the flea which lodges in its fur, have common ancestors. The
family, originally one, has been divided under the influence of soil,
climate, food, moisture, mode of life, and by virtue of the natural
selection which has preserved and accumulated the favorable
modifications which have occurred in the organism. Mr. Darwin, I repeat,
appears to me a man strongly disposed to systematize, but I do not on
this account conclude that he is mistaken. The question is, what opinion
we must form of his doctrine on principles of experimental science?
Professor Owen[122] does not appear to allow it any value; M. Agassiz
does not admit it at all;[123] and, without crossing the ocean, we
might consult M. Pictet,[124] who would reply, that judging by the
experimental data which we have at present, this doctrine is an
hypothesis not confirmed by the observation of facts. We will leave this
controversy to naturalists. What will remain eventually in their science
of the system under discussion? The answer belongs to the future
enlightened by experience and by the employment of a sage induction.
What is the relation existing between these systematic views and the
question of the Creator? This is the sole object of our study.

The opinions of the English naturalist are very dubious as to the vital
questions of religious philosophy. I have pointed out to you the
confusion of his ideas in the use which he makes of natural selection.
In the text of his book, he admits, in the special case of life, the
intervention of the Creator for the production of the first living
being, and he does not speak of man, except in an incidental sentence,