It is fair to conclude that it was his own doctrine that led him astray, for in the same connection (in “Life and Letters”) he says that when aboard the Beagle he was called “orthodox and was heartily laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.”  In the same connection he thus describes his change and his final attitude:  “When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.  This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species’; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker.  But then arises the doubt:  Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

“I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.  The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

A careful reading of the above discloses the gradual transition wrought in Darwin himself by the unsupported hypothesis which he launched upon the world, or which he endorsed with such earnestness and industry as to impress his name upon it He was regarded as “orthodox” when he was young; he was even laughed at for quoting the Bible “as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.”  In the beginning he regarded himself as a Theist and felt compelled “to look to a First Cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.”

This conclusion, he says, was strong in his mind when he wrote “The Origin of Species,” but he observes that since that time this conclusion very gradually became weaker, and then he unconsciously brings a telling indictment against his own hypothesis.  He says, “Can the mind of man (which, according to his belief, has been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals) be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” He first links man with the animals, and then, because of this supposed connection, estimates man’s mind by brute standards.  Agnosticism is the natural attitude of the evolutionist.  How can a brute mind comprehend spiritual things?  It makes a tremendous difference what a man thinks about his origin whether he looks up or down.  Who will say, after reading these words, that it is immaterial what man thinks about his origin?  Who will deny that the acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis shuts out the higher reasonings and the larger conceptions of man?