28o Darwin, and after Darwin. 



no other logical objection to the statement, that the 

 movements of the planets afford as good evidence of 

 the influence of guiding angels as they do of the in- 

 fluence of gravitation. 



So much, then, for the illogical position that, granting 

 the evidence in favour of natural descent and super- 

 natural design to be equal and parallel, we should 

 hesitate in our choice between the two theories. But, 

 of course, if the evidence is supposed not to be equal 

 and parallel — i.e. if it is supposed that the theory of 

 natural selection is not so good a theory whereby to 

 explain the facts of adaptation as is that of super- 

 natural design, — then the objection is no longer the one 

 which we are considering. It is quite another objection, 

 and one which is not prima facie absurd. Therefore 

 let us state clearly the distinct question which thus 

 arises. 



Innumerable cases of adaptation of organisms to 

 their environments are the observed facts for which an 

 explanation is required. To supply this explanation, 

 two, and only two, hypotheses are in the field. Of 

 these two hypotheses one is intelligent design mani- 

 fested directly in special creation ; the other is natural 

 causation operating through countless ages of the past. 

 Now, the adaptations in question involve an innumer- 

 able multitude of special mechanisms, in most cases 

 even within the limits of any one given species ; but 

 when we consider the sum of all these mechanisms 

 presented by organic nature as a whole, the mind 

 must indeed be dull which does not feel astounded. 

 For, be it further observed, these mechanical con- 

 trivances^ are, for the most part, no merely simple 



* It is often objected to Darwin's terminology, that it embraces such 



