34 



I believe that this was the "simple beginning" of all things. You 

 may call it a miraculous act of a Creator, but I hold that it was 

 nothing at all of the sort. It was a Creation, but there was no 

 CREATOR. It may be quite unreasonable, but that is no affair of mine. 

 "What is a hobby good for if I cannot ride it over a fence like this, 

 especially when mounted on such a one as Huxley's "little hoise," 

 which he has found out for me ready saddled and bridled, perhaps, I 

 hear you say. You are mistaken again, I can ride quite well without 

 either. 



I believe that the only creation, if I must use the word, was that 

 of the first organic form 



That every plant and animal has since acquired its present shape 

 by minute accidental changes, one after another; 



That these changes were useful, though without any intention that 

 they should be so ; 



That in the "struggle for life" those thus formed survived, and that 

 those not thus favoured were " exterminated ;" 



That no plant or animal became, what we now see it to be, by 

 design, but by pure accident, favoured as just stated ; 



That every plant and animal is still " struggling " to keep its place, 

 if it can, in Nature. 



You probably will here ask me, whence principles of virtue or 

 morality came to men ? For if man was intended to have any sense 

 of virtue, he must have been created for it by some antecedent. Well ; 

 but there was none such, and therefore it is all the result of the 

 u sequence of events," just like all the rest of all the changes that have 

 come to the various animals. It follows, therefore, on my theory, that 

 virtuous men must have " exterminated " all who were not so lucky as 

 to be virtuous. About this there can be no manner of doubt. 



I believe that aD such creatures have universally tended to rise in 

 the scale of beings. You may indeed say, if so, how is it that such vast 

 multitudes of the lowest forms of all still exist ? Perhaps you think this is 

 fatal to my theory. It is not that is all I have to say on the subject. 

 Don't tell me it is a figment of my own brain. Even suppose it was, 

 it would be none the worse for that. 



I believe, though it flatly contradicts my belief, that it was not 

 necessary for all the lower forms to be advanced, for " what advantage " 

 would it be to the lowest forms to be advanced ? Very true, you say ; 

 and you tell me to use the same argument in the case of my bears, 

 ostriches, logger- headed ducks, and all the rest of them. How. you say, 

 can we tell that it would be an advantage to any of them to be 

 changed ? That is a captious question, and you need not expect any 

 answer to it from me. 



I believe, have I not told you before, that all animals have been 

 changed by some accidental benefits ; but if you ask me to point to any 

 existing animal, and say how it could be benefited by some change, 

 that is quite another question, and one with which I do not consider I 

 have anything to do. You tell me that it would be no advantage to a 

 swallow to be changed into a snail, nor to an antelope to be trans- 

 muted into a frog. Perhaps not, hut tell me what you like; I tell 

 you what I have just told you. 



I believe, for I have said it, that many a one of even the lowest 

 animals in the scale, has a "really wondrous and beautiful organisation," 

 and you may say, that if so, you do not see how it can be improved. 

 Say so. 



I believe, I repeat again and again, "How do we know that it 

 would be any advantage for the lower forms to be more highly organised?" 

 You say you agree with me. Of course you do ; everybody must agree with 



