To the Editor of the Press.

Sir--In two of your numbers you have already taken notice of Darwin's
theory of the origin of species; I would venture to trespass upon
your space in order to criticise briefly both your notices.

The first is evidently the composition of a warm adherent of the
theory in question; the writer overlooks all the real difficulties in
the way of accepting it, and, caught by the obvious truth of much
that Darwin says, has rushed to the conclusion that all is equally
true. He writes with the tone of a partisan, of one deficient in
scientific caution, and from the frequent repetition of the same
ideas manifest in his dialogue one would be led to suspect that he
was but little versed in habits of literary composition and
philosophical argument. Yet he may fairly claim the merit of having
written in earnest. He has treated a serious subject seriously
according to his lights; and though his lights are not brilliant
ones, yet he has apparently done his best to show the theory on which
he is writing in its most favourable aspect. He is rash, evidently
well satisfied with himself, very possibly mistaken, and just one of
those persons who (without intending it) are more apt to mislead than
to lead the few people that put their trust in them. A few will
always follow them, for a strong faith is always more or less
impressive upon persons who are too weak to have any definite and
original faith of their own. The second writer, however, assumes a
very different tone. His arguments to all practical intents and
purposes run as follows:-

Old fallacies are constantly recurring. Therefore Darwin's theory is
a fallacy.