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? On the very brink of the grave, after he had extracted from his hypothesis all the good that there was in it and all the benefit that it could confer, he is helplessly in the dark, and "cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems." When he believed in God, in the Bible, in Christ and in a future life there were no mysteries that disturbed him, but a _guess_ with nothing in the universe to support it swept him away from his moorings and left him in his old age in the midst of mysteries that he thought _insoluble_. He must content himself with _Agnosticism_. What can Darwinism ever do to compensate any one for the destruction of faith in God, in His Word, in His Son, and of hope of immortality? It would seem sufficient to quote Darwin against himself and to cite the confessed effect of the doctrine as a sufficient reason for rejecting it, but the situation is a very serious one and there is other evidence that should be presented.