them; why is it that the misunderstanding of Mr. Darwin's
"distinctive feature" should have been so long and obstinate? Why
is it that, no matter how much writers like Mr. Grant Allen and
Professor Ray Lankester may say about "Mr. Darwin's master-key," nor
how many more like hyperboles they brandish, they never put a
succinct resume of Mr. Darwin's theory side by side with a similar
resume of his grandfather's and Lamarck's? Neither Mr. Darwin
himself, not any of those to whose advocacy his reputation is mainly
due, have done this. Professor Huxley is the man of all others who
foisted Mr. Darwin most upon us, but in his famous lecture on the
coming of age of the "Origin of Species" he did not explain to his
hearers wherein the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution differed from
the old; and why not? Surely, because no sooner is this made clear
than we perceive that the idea underlying the old evolutionists is
more in accord with instinctive feelings that we have cherished too
long to be able now to disregard them than the central idea which
underlies the "Origin of Species."

What should we think of one who maintained that the steam-engine and
telescope were not developed mainly through design and effort
(letting the indisputably existing element of luck go without
saying), but to the fact that if any telescope or steam-engine
"happened to be made ever such a little more conveniently for man's
purposes than another," &c., &c.?

Let us suppose a notorious burglar found in possession of a jemmy;
it is admitted on all hands that he will use it as soon as he gets a
chance; there is no doubt about this; how perverted should we not
consider the ingenuity of one who tried to persuade us we were wrong
in thinking that the burglar compassed the possession of the jemmy