II 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 x, or y, or z ; 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 

 phenomenon is explained when it is shown to be 

 a case of some general law of Nature ; but the 

 supernatural interposition of the Creator 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. 



