object to repeated acts of creation ever considered that no progress
can be made in knowledge without repeated acts of thinking? And what
are thoughts but specific acts of the mind? Why should it then be
unscientific to infer that the facts of nature are the result of a
similar process, since there is no evidence of any other cause? The
world has arisen in some way or other. How it originated is the great
question, and Darwin's theory, like all other attempts to explain the
origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural. I believe he has not
even made the best conjecture possible in the present state of our
knowledge.

The more I look at the great complex of the animal world, the more
sure do I feel that we have not yet reached its hidden meaning, and the
more do I regret that the young and ardent spirits of our day give
themselves to speculation rather than to close and accurate
investigation. [Footnote: _Atlantic Monthly_ 33. 101.]




X

PASSAGES FOR COMPARISON WITH THE METHOD OF AGASSIZ


BOECKH ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE

[Footnote: August Boeckh; _Encyclopadie und Methodobgie der
Philologischen Wissenschaften_, pp. 46-47.]