U DARWINIANA. 



the collision of the individuals with one another, or 

 with the surroundings. The original impulse, which 

 we once supposed was in the line of the observed move- 

 ment, only proves to have been in a different direc- 

 tion ; but the series of movements took place with a 

 series of results, each and all of them none the less 

 determined, none the less designed. 



Wherefore, when, at the close, you quote Laplace, 

 that " the discoveries of science throw final causes far- 

 ther back," the most you can mean is, that they con- 

 strain us to look farther back for the impulse. They 

 do not at all throw the argument for design farther 

 back, in the sense of furnishing evidence or presump- 

 tion that only the primary impulse was designed, and 

 that all the rest followed from chance or necessity. 



Evidence of design, I think you will allow, every- 

 where is drawn from the observation of adaptations 

 and of results, and has really nothing to do with any- 

 thing else, except where you can take the word for the 

 will. And in that case you have not argument for 

 design, but testimony. In Nature we have no testi- 

 mony ; but the argument is overwhelming. 



Now, note that the argument of the olden time — that 

 of Paley, etc., which your skeptic found so convincing — 

 was always the argument for design in the movement 

 of the balls after deflection. For it was drawn from 

 animals produced by generation, not by creation, and 

 through a long succession of generations or deflections. 

 "Wherefore, if the argument for design is perfect in the 

 case of an animal derived from a long succession of 

 individuals as nearly alike as offspring is generally like 

 parents and grandparents, and if this argument is not 



