ARGUMENT OF DESIGN 95 



perished, but how or why those which survived [Darwin's 

 ' survival of the fittest '] should be cast, as we see that 

 plants and animals are cast, into regular classes, the 

 hypothesis does not explain, or rather the hypothesis is 

 inconsistent with this phenomenon."^ 



In another passage (chap, xvi.) he brings forward a 

 well-known objection to Darwinism. In speaking of the 

 elephant's trunk, he says : " The short unbending neck of 

 the elephant is compensated by the length and flexibility of 

 his proboscis. . . . If it be suggested that this proboscis 

 may have been produced in a long course of generations, 

 by the constant endeavour of the elephant to thrust out 

 its nose (which is the general hypothesis by which it has 

 lately been attempted to account for the forms of animated 

 nature) I would ask, How was the animal to subsist in the 

 meantime during the process until this prolongation of its 

 nose were completed ? What was to become of the 

 individual whilst the species was perfecting ? " 



This is a reasonable and, indeed, often suggested 

 question for Darwinism ; as there is no relationship be- 

 tween the accidental, favourable variation, which may 

 appear in one year, without any guarantee of its being 

 improved upon, even if it reappear in the next or any future 

 year; but with " definite " variations, the case is different, 

 the continued change in one direction, not of one, but of all 

 the individuals, year after year or generation after genera- 

 tion, is secured, provided the same inciting conditions of 

 life be constant. 



Besides the presence of the " Object," as Croll says, 

 or Purpose in organic structures, there is their arrange- 

 ment and order to enable them to execute their functions 

 together for the well-being of the organism, Paley sup- 



' The italics in^this passage are mine. 



