Darwin Correspondence Project

2. Park Street | Oxford.

Dear Sir

A sermon of Dr. Pusey's recently published with the addition of certain notes, takes the form of an attack on the Theory of Evolution.

I have written to Dr. Pusey to inform him of several very important errors he has made in his definition of the theory which he does not appear to understand. But there are several points which I should also like to deny, and on these I have taken the liberty to write to you, especially since the sermon has made a great impression on undergraduates, & must have given them an entirely wrong view of the case.

First Dr. Pusey says, that you wrote the ``origin of species'' `with a Quasi Theological not with a scientific object``, namely `to overthrow the dogma of separate creations'. Whence he argues that you were biassed when you wrote it & the result is therefore invalid.

Second

That the ''transformation theory`` is a special object of your interest because it dispenses with the intervention of a personal creator.

Third, that your object was to establish a First cause introduced ''to save us from the conception of eternity of matter, but who, after his creation looks on unconcerned upon the result of his act upon his creatures``, and that this is the essence of Darwinism.

These are the three things I have ventured to ask you about, all the important parts in the rest I have answered to my satisfaction, if not to his. But these I could not directly answer as they seem to be based on ideas of your meaning rather than on actual facts.

If you should kindly answer this letter, would you say if I might publish in the ''Undergraduates journal``, your answer, as I hold it important that erroneous notions of this theory should not be promulgated.

Trusting that you will pardon my troubling you with this communication

I remain | Yours truly | Henry N. Ridley | —