Dear Darwin

I have been reading Sir W. Thomson’s address, & am most anxious to have your opinion of it— What a belly-full it is, & how Scotchy— it seems to me to be very able indeed, & what a good notion it gives of the gigantic achievement of Mathematicians & Physicists.¹ it really makes one giddy to read of them. I do not think Huxley will thank him for his reference to him as a ‘positive’ unbeliever in spontaneous generation—² these Mathematicians do not seem to me to distinguish between un-belief & a-belief.— I know no other name for the state of mind that is traduced under the term skepticism.³

I had no idea before that pure mathematics had achieved such wonders in practical science, & I wonder how far Thomson’s statements will be contested. The total absence of any allusion to Tyndall’s labors, even when comets are his theme, seems strange to me, & the laudation of Tait, Tyndall’s veiled adversary both by name & by implication so often, is not in good taste, considering that Tait has been the constant laudatory anonymous reviewer of Thomson himself in the Scotch reviews.⁴

The notion of introducing life by meteors is astounding & very unphilosophical, as being dragged in head & shoulders apropos of the speculations of the ‘Origin’ of life from or amongst existing matter—seeing that Meteorites are after all composed of the same matter as the globe is—⁵ Does he suppose that God’s breathing upon Meteors or their progenitors is more philosophical than breathing on the face of the earth?

I thought too that Meteors arrived on the earth in a state of incandescence,— the condition under which T. assumes that the world itself could not have sustained life.⁶ For my part I would as soon believe in the Phœnix as in the Meteoric import of life.— After all, the worst objections are to be found in the distribution of life, & the total want of evidence of renewal by importations such as Meteoric visitations would suggest the constant recurrence of. The quotation of Herschels very early objection to Nat. Selection is surely not fair, if indeed correct, & again highly unphilosophical,— what real objection is it to Nat. Selection that it should be too Laputan?⁷ Surely Columbus & the Egg might have occurred to him⁸ & to call this (Herschels objection) a most “valuable and instructive criticism”! I wish he, or any one else would tell me the logical significance of the phrase “the argument from design”.⁹ I understand design well enough, but “the argument from it” is just what the arguer pleases to argue— he means I suppose “a certain conclusion from design”, assuming always that his idea of design is God’s idea too. Again how the Deuce can “proofs of intelligent design” (in Nature) show us “through nature the influence of a free will”?

What will Huxley say to the phrase “Metaphysical or Scientific” if Metaphysics are anything they are in his opinion good science as aught else scientific.¹⁰

Are the Commentators on Paley, a bit worse than Paley himself?—¹¹

I am pleased with his praise of old Sabine, because I think there has been too much disposition to overlook his really great scientific merit, his indomitable perseverance,— just as I think Humboldt is underrated now a days— Well, these were our Gods my friend, & I still worship at their shrines a little—¹²

I am hammering away at a narrative of my Marocco trip,¹³ & find it harder work than ever; I suspect that systematic & descriptive writing hurts head & hand for other writing— though you preserve freshness of style with any amount of purely scientific writing.

My wife takes Harriette to Berlin on Wednesday & Willy escorts them.¹⁴ She (wife) has gout in the finger-joint I grieve to say; which interferes with her playing, & what is worse with her writing, & she likes writing as a manual exercise, as much as I hate it—

Do you see the Journal of Botany,?— there is a case mentioned on good authority of Viola canina (var sylvatica) growing with the cristate form of Aspidium felix-mas & bearing plaited & crisped leaves after the fashion of the Fern!¹⁵

Ever yours affect | J D Hooker