Every such speculation must be rejected, because it is self-contradictory. It professes to develop a Theory of Creation, -- to explain the beginning of things; and in order to do so, it is obliged to assume that the present or ordinary succession of phenomena, the common sequence of causes and effects which we every day witness, has continued from eternity; -- that is, that there never was any Creation, and that the universe never began to be. It professes to untie the knot, and ends by denying that there is any knot to untie. Mr. Darwin is too imaginative a thinker to be a safe guide in natural science; he has unconsciously left the proper ground of physics and inductive science, and busied himself with questions of cosmogony and metaphysics.
This article as a whole has really baffled me. Like I stated before, Darwin is a figure in a lot of scientific classes and history, so to read such a critical piece about him is fascinating. It really makes me rethink about how we learn and what we learn in our educational system. What kind of biases are present when writings, such as this one, are not present in the curriculum? Although I am not fully aware of the impacts this writing has had on the sciences as a whole, it seems to be a great piece that promotes the scientific method and does not shy away from pointing out the flaws of a very influential person. From my point of view and personal experiences, it does not seem to have a huge impact on the way Darwin or his theories are taught, which is quite a shame, as it is very important work.