Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution
In following the Darwinism/ID debate one will quickly hear from the Darwinist side that Darwinism has been well proven. From the other side one will hear there is no proof whatsoever that Darwinism explains the origin of the species. As contradictory as these statements seem, there is actually an explanation that reveals a truth to both.
The reconciliation comes from noting the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution studies how sub-species and variations arise. For example, the lengths of beaks of a certain bird have been show to change due to climatic changes. The percent of moths with certain colorations has seemingly changed in response to the changing needs of local camouflage. Micro-evolution has been shown to be correct in some instances. There are not as many such proofs as we might infer from the apologists for Darwinism and in some cases issues remain, but as a whole a reasonable person should certainly grant the principles of Darwinism have, in some cases, explained micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution refers to the origin of the species (not sub-species). This is what is at controversy.
The Darwinist making the above claims fails to mention something. He fails to mention that macro-evolution has not been proven. He may well shut his own eyes and believe that if micro-evolution has been proven then macro-evolution also has been proven. But it just isn't so.
For example: "Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Wesson R. Beyond Natural Selection. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press, 1991)
Theosophy definitely grants to Darwinism the power to explain some micro-evolution. But after that concession, it describes Darwinism as only a "minor" law. If you read on and appreciate the scope of occultism's view, you will see that Darwinism is described correctly as indeed only a minor law.
Blavatsky's summary view of Darwinism:
The fact is, that only the partial truth of many of the secondary "laws" of Darwinism is beyond question" (SDii662)
Since Darwinism has been shown to be inadequate after a century and a half to explain macro-evolution, her assertions of 1888 have been vindicated.