248 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



spend their substance without stint, that which they value above all 

 but downright necessities, that which they admire beyond all except 

 the law of duty itself. We can not think that this is not designed, 

 nor that the Artist who produced it was blind to what was coming 

 out of his work. 



Once more, the doctrine of evolution restores to the science of 

 nature the unity which we should expect in the creation of God. 

 Paley's argument proved design, but included the possibility of many 

 designers. Not one design, but many separate designs, all no doubt 

 of the same character, but all worked out independently of one 

 another, is the picture that he puts before us. But the doctrine of 

 evolution binds all existing things on earth into one. Every mineral, 

 every plant, every animal has such properties that it benefits other 

 things besides itself, and derives benefit in turn. The insect develops 

 the plant, and the plant the insect ; the brute aids in the evolution of 

 the man, and the man in that of the brute. All things are embraced 

 in one great design, beginning with the very creation. He who uses 

 the doctrine of evolution to prove that no intelligence planned the 

 world, is undertaking the self-contradictory task of showing that a 

 great machine has no purpose by tracing in detail the marvelous com- 

 plexity of its parts, and the still more marvelous precision with which 

 all work together to produce a common result. 



To conclude, the doctrine of evolution leaves the argument for an 

 intelligent Creator and Governor of the world stronger than it was 

 before. There is still as much as ever the proof of an intelligent pur- 

 pose pervading all creation. The difference is, that the execution of 

 that purpose belongs more to the original act of creation, less to acts 

 of government since. There is more divine foresight, there is less 

 divine interposition ; and whatever has been taken from the latter has 

 been added to the former. 



Some scientific students of nature may fancy they can deduce in 

 the working out of the theory results inconsistent with religious belief ; 

 and in a future lecture these will have to be examined ; and it is pos- 

 sible that the theory may be so presented as to be inconsistent with 

 the teaching of revelation. But, whatever may be the relation of the 

 doctrine of evolution to revelation, it can not be said that this doctrine 

 is antagonistic to religion in its essence. The progress of science in 

 this direction will assuredly end in helping men to believe with more 

 assurance than ever that the Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, 

 by understanding hath he established the heavens. 



