refutation, or even of explanation.

I am free to confess that, overwhelming as is the evidence brought
forward by Mr. Spencer in the articles already referred to, as
showing that accidental variations, unguided by the helm of any main
general principle which should as it were keep their heads straight,
could never accumulate with the results supposed by Mr. Darwin; and
overwhelming, again, as is the consideration that Mr. Spencer's most
crushing argument was allowed by Mr. Darwin to go without reply,
still the considerations arising from the discoveries of the last
forty years or so in connection with protoplasm, seem to me almost
more overwhelming still. This evidence proceeds on different lines
from that adduced by Mr. Spencer, but it points to the same
conclusion, namely, that though luck will avail much if backed by
cunning and experience, it is unavailing for any permanent result
without them. There is an irony which seems almost always to attend
on those who maintain that protoplasm is the only living substance
which ere long points their conclusions the opposite way to that
which they desire--in the very last direction, indeed, in which they
of all people in the world would willingly see them pointed.

It may be asked why I should have so strong an objection to seeing
protoplasm as the only living substance, when I find this view so
useful to me as tending to substantiate design--which I admit that I
have as much and as seriously at heart as I can allow myself to have
any matter which, after all, can so little affect daily conduct; I
reply that it is no part of my business to inquire whether this or
that makes for my pet theories or against them; my concern is to
inquire whether or no it is borne out by facts, and I find the
opinion that protoplasm is the one living substance unstable,