17 



I think that, even if we admit all the evolutionists lay claim to, nevertheless, 

 the teleological argument that of a final cause for the existence of a rational 

 and intelligent Creator still remains unanswered. Evolution only accounts 

 for the existence of the universe as a going machine, successive generations 

 and variations being continually produced, and those generations being per- 

 petuated in a manner beneficial to the creatures generated. I say, admitting 

 all this as an explanation of the natural history of the universe, it still fails to 

 exclude the teleological argument that the creatures which exist must have 

 had the power of variation bestowed upon them. The creature is put into 

 an environment which enables it to fulfil its functions and to bring about 

 the results we witness ; but all this implies design and purpose. It is what 

 could not have occurred by chance or accident. Therefore, I think, 

 material evolution does not militate against the belief we entertain, 

 and that it is rational to entertain, as to the universe having been created 

 by a God who had in view the perfection of the creatures by which 

 it is inhabited. Evolution is to be regarded simply as one of the means 

 by which this perfection and improvement have been brought about. In 

 point of fact, the whole argument brought by the evolutionists against 

 theism, seems to me very like the old illustration which, in accounting 

 for the movement of a watch, went back to the spring and left the origin 

 of that part of the machinery unexplained. These scientific theorists 

 attempt to explain the existence of the universe without a Creator. They 

 merely explain some of the processes, but fail altogether to touch their 

 origin. It is a very remarkable thing how completely all the efforts of human 

 science have failed to explain the origin of anything. Professor Max Miiller 

 has pointed out that all the attempts to explain the beginning of any language 

 have utterly failed, and that there is not the slightest prospect of our obtain- 

 ing such knowledge. He adds the remark, that the human intellect seems 

 equally to fail in ascertaining the beginning of everything else. Therefore, 

 I cannot think that the argument for evolution although I admit evolution 

 to be true as far as it accounts for a considerable number of steps in the 

 process by which the creatures of the universe have been improved does 

 dispose of the teleological argument for a final cause, which the author of 

 this paper has put before us in so admirable a manner. 



Mr. DENT. I should like to ask the last speaker whether he accounts for 

 the appearance of man by evolution ? 



Rev. J. WHITE. My argument was only that, admitting evolution to be 

 entirely proved, and that it could be shown that man was descended from 

 an ape or a tadpole, still this does not do away with the teleological argu- 

 ment that there is design in nature, and that generation is only a means by 

 which it is worked out. 



Mr. DENT. Does not that go against the statement of Genesis? 



Kev. J. WHITE. I only say, supposing the case of the evolutionist to be 

 admitted, still it does not militate against, nor upset, the argument advanced 1 

 in the paper. This was what I intended to express. 



C 



