creation of animals and plants given in "Paradise Lost," in which Milton
so vividly embodies the natural sense of Genesis. Far be it from me to
say that it is untrue because it is impossible. I confine myself to what
must be regarded as a modest and reasonable request for some particle of
evidence that the existing species of animals and plants did originate
in that way, as a condition of my belief in a statement which appears to
me to be highly improbable.

And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to
give to the evolutionists of 1851-8. Within the ranks of the biologists,
at that time, I met with nobody, except Dr. Grant of University College,
who had a word to say for Evolution--and his advocacy was not calculated
to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me
whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and who was, at the same
time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose
acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852, and then entered into the bonds
of a friendship which, I am happy to think, has known no interruption.
Many and prolonged were the battles we fought on this topic. But even my
friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of apt illustration could
not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two
grounds:--Firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favour of
transmutation was wholly insufficient; and secondly, that no suggestion
respecting the causes of transmutation assumed, which had been made, was
in any way adequate to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state
of knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other conclusion
was justifiable.

In those days I had never even heard of Treviranus' "Biologie." However,
I had studied Lamarck attentively and I had read the "Vestiges" with due
care; but neither of them afforded me any good ground for changing my