PHYSICAL EVILS AND " INIDEALITY" 339 



by which, I repeat, I would signify that nothing in 

 Nature ever reaches that idea/ state of perfection which 

 is conceivable. It expresses what I have called a relative 

 state of perfection. I call it a natural law, because law is 

 expressive of an order of facts, and this law admits of 

 universal application, applies to everything thought to be 

 " designed " though now known to be " evolved," and is, 

 therefore, like other natural laws, a universal witness to 

 the will of God. 



Under this same head of Adaptation, I would allude 

 to a statement of Mr. Herbert Spencer, who in his usu- 

 ally powerful reasoning in support of Evolution, has made 

 a slip (as it seems to me) in dealing with this subject in 

 his article on the special creative hypothesis.^ 



In speaking of the parasites to which man is sub- 

 jected, he asks : " Shall we say that man, ' the head and 

 crown of things,' was provided as a habitat for these 

 parasites ? or shall we say that these degraded creatures, 

 incapable of thought and enjoyment, were created that 

 they might cause unhappiness to man ? One or other 

 of these alternatives must be chosen by those who con- 

 tend that every kind of organism was separately devised 

 by the Creator. Which do they prefer.? With the 

 conception of two antagonistic powers^ which severally 

 work good and evil in the world, the facts are congruous 

 enough" 



I italicise the last sentence as seeming to me to be 

 bordering on absurdity, under any hypothesis. For, if 

 parasites be an " evil " and man the " good," the argument 

 cannot stop with man ; and we shall soon become utterly 

 perplexed to know which animals are " good " and which 

 are " evil ". If those which prey on others, such as 



'^Principles of Biology, ist ed,, vol. i., p. 344. 



