au THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 57 
not much. The arguments brought forward in its 
favour all take one form: If species were not 
supernaturally created, we cannot understand the 
facts “, or y,or 2; we cannot understand the 
structure of animals or plants, unless we suppose 
they were contrived for special ends; we cannot 
understand the structure of the eye, except by 
supposing it to have been made to see with; we 
cannot understand instincts, unless we suppose 
animals to have been miraculously endowed with 
them. 
As a question of dialectics, it must be admitted 
that this sort of reasoning is not very formidable 
to those who are not to be frightened by conse- 
quences. It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam-—— 
take this explanation or be ignorant. But suppose 
we prefer to admit our ignorance rather than 
adopt a hypothesis at variance with all the teach- 
ings of Nature? Or, suppose for a moment we 
admit the explanation, and then seriously ask 
ourselves how much the wiser are we; what does 
the explanation explain? Is it any more than a 
grandiloquent way of announcing the fact, that we 
really know nothing about the matter? A 
phznomenon is explained when it is shown to be 
a case of some general law of Nature; but the 
supernatural interposition of the Picator can, by 
the nature of the case, exemplify no law, and if 
species have really arisen in this way, it is absurd 
to attempt to discuss their origin. 
