specific Genesis 125 



Again, Mr. Wright does not * see how, with such uncer- 

 tain, "fortuitous, occasional, and intermitting" elements' I 

 ' could have succeeded in making any calculation at all.' I 

 venture to think, however, that an inability to determine the 

 positive time required for the occurrence of certain phenomena 

 in no way involves an inability to fix a minimum period for 

 their development. 



Again, in criticising the use of the words 'contrivance' 

 and ' purpose,' Mr. Wright tells us, * The relations of a machine 

 to its uses may be considered in good sound English as con- 

 trivances and purposes, without thinking of what the inventor 

 intended! Now I deny that we can so speak without im- "^ 

 plicit reference of the kind, though we need not make direct 

 or explicit reference. We are also told that ' the proper 

 meaning of the word "intention" is concentration, and the 

 not intending of something else.' I should be glad of some 

 reference to authorities as regards this assertion. As a fact 

 the word is used in the sense I have assigned to it. Finally 

 Mr. Wright gives us the application of these new definitions. 

 He affirms that Mr. Darwin is not irrational in asking 

 whether 'the Creator intentionally ordered' certain pheno- 

 mena, because we cannot reasonably make use of the term 

 ' intention ' in reference to the Creator at all. 



It is evident, however, that in Mr. Darwin's opinion we 

 can speak of Divine intention in some things, otherwise he 

 would not ask whether we could do so or not even in these. 

 It would be quite superfluous for any one who believed we 

 could do so in no case to ask the question with regard to 

 certain special cases. The criticism merely amounts to say- 

 ing that both Mr. Darwin and I, instead of using the word 

 ' intention,' should employ some other, possibly ' advertence.' 

 This leaves the substance of my remarks and my criticism of 

 Mr. Darwin quite unimpaired and in full force. 



Thus I venture to urge, in opposition to my critic, that 



