DARWIN AND EIS REVIEWERS. U7 



from a lifeless manufacture) would be originated and 

 perfected in any other way, or that this is not the fit- 

 ting way ? If it means that it was not, if he so misuses 

 words that by the Creator he intends an unintelligent 

 power, undirected force, or necessity, then he has put 

 his case so as to invite disbelief in it. For then blind 

 forces have produced not only manifest adaptations 

 of means to specific ends — which is absurd enough — 

 but better adjusted and more perfect instruments or 

 machines than intellect (that is, human intellect) can 

 contrive and human skill execute — which no sane per- 

 son will believe. J 



On the other hand, if Darwin even admits — we 

 will not say adopts — the theistic view, he may save 

 himself much needless trouble in the endeavor to ac- 

 count for the absence of every sort of intermediate 

 form. Those in the line between one species and an- 

 other supposed to be derived from it he may be bound 

 to provide ; but as to " an infinite number of other 

 varieties not intermediate, gross, rude, and purposeless, 

 the unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause," 

 born only to perish, which a relentless reviewer has 

 imposed upon his theory — rightly enough upon the 

 atheistic alternative — the theistic view rids him at once 

 of this " scum of creation." For, as species do not 

 now vary at all times and places and in all directions, 

 nor produce crude, vague, imperfect, and useless forms, 

 there is no reason for supposing that they ever did. 

 Good-for-nothing monstrosities, failures of purpose 

 rather than purposeless, indeed, sometimes occur ; but 

 these are just as anomalous and unlikely upon Dar- 

 win's theory as upon any other. For his particular 



