THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. no 



Ou 



take is to make the most of gradation and adlierence 

 to type as suggestive of derivation, and nnaccountable 

 upon any other scientific ^dew — deferring all attempts 

 to explain how suck a metamorphosis was effected, 

 until naturalists have explained how the tadpole is 

 metamorphosed into a frog, or one sort of polyp into 

 another. As to why it is so, the philosophy of effi- 

 cient cause, and even the whole argument from design, 

 "would stand, upon the admission of such a theory of 

 derivation, precisely where they stand without it. At 

 least there is, or need be, no ground of difference here 

 between Darwin and Agassiz. The latter will admit, 

 with Owen and every moi3)hologist, that hopeless is 

 the attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in 

 members of the same class by utility or the doctrine 

 of final causes. " On the ordinary view of the inde- 

 pendent creation of each being, we can only say that 

 so it is, that it has so pleased the Creator to construct 

 each animal and plant." Mr. Darwin, in proposing a 

 theory which suggests a how that harmonizes these facts 

 into a system, we trust implies that all was done wise- 

 ly, in the largest sense designedly, and by an intelli- 

 gent first cause. The contemplation of the subject on 

 the intellectual side, the amplest exposition of the 

 unity of plan in creation, considered irrespective of 

 natural agencies, leads to no other conclusion. 



We are thus, at last, brought to the question. What 

 would happen if the derivation of species were to be 

 substantiated, either as a true physical theory, or as a 

 sufficient hypothesis ? What would come of it ? The 

 inquiry is a pertinent one, just now. For, of those who 

 agr^ with us in thinking that Darwin has not estab- 



