1868. | Darwin and Pangenesis. . 309 
stones for the roofs, &c.; and if the use of each part and of the 
whole building were pointed out, it would be unreasonable if he 
declared that nothing had been made clear to him, because the precise 
cause of the shape of each fragment could not be given. But this 
is a nearly parallel case with the objection that selection explains 
nothing because we know not the cause of each individual difference 
in the structure of each being. 
“The shape of the fragments of stone at the base of our 
precipice may be called accidental, but this is not strictly correct ; 
for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of events, all 
obeying natural laws; on the nature of the rock, on the lines of 
deposition or cleavage, on the form of the mountain, which depends 
on its upheaval and subsequent denudation, and lastly on the storm 
or earthquake which threw down the fragments. But in regard to 
the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be 
strictly said to be accidental. And here we are led to face a great 
difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling 
beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have 
foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed 
by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator 
intentionally ordered, if we use the words in an ordinary sense, 
that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that 
the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which 
have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined 
for the builder’s sake, can it with any greater probability be main- 
tained that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of 
the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants ;— 
many of these variations being of no service to man, and not 
beneficial—far more often injurious—to the creatures themselves ? 
Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon 
should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque 
ponter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental 
qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed 
of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for 
man’s brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,— 
if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were 
intentionally guided, in order that the greyhound, for instance, that 
perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no 
shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations alike 
in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been 
the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the 
most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were 
intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, 
we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief that ‘ vari- 
ation has been led along certain beneficial lines,’ like a stream 
‘along definite and useful lines of irrigation.’ If we assume that 
