Classification. 4 1 



upon the theory of special creation. Therefore, the 

 only possible way in which all this uniform body of 

 direct evidence can be met by a supporter of the 

 latter theory, is by falling back upon the argument 

 from ignorance. We do not know, it may be said, 

 what hidden reasons there may have been for fol- 

 lowing all these general principles in the separate 

 creation of specific types. Now, it is evident that 

 this is a form of argument which admits of being 

 brought against all the actual — and even all the 

 possible — lines of evidence in favour of evolution. 

 Therefore I deem it desirable thus early in our pro- 

 ceedings to place this argument from ignorance on its 

 proper logical footing. 



If there were any independent evidence in favour of 

 special creation as a fact, then indeed the argument 

 from ignorance might be fairly used against any sceptical 

 cavils regarding the mctJiod. In this way, for example, 

 Bishop Butler made a legitimate use of the argument 

 from ignorance when he urged that it is no reasonable 

 objection against a revelation, otherzvise accredited, to 

 show that it has been rendered in a form, or after a 

 method, which we should not have antecedently ex- 

 pected. But he could not have legitimately employed 

 this argument, except on the supposition that he had 

 some independent evidence in favour of the revela- 

 tion ; for, in the absence of any such independent 

 evidence, appeal to the argument from ignorance 

 .would have become a mere begging of the question, 

 by simply assuming that a revelation had been made. 

 And thus it is in the present case. A man, of course, 

 may quite legitimately say, Assuming that the theory of 

 special creation is true, it is not for us to anticipate the 



