146 DARWINIANA. 



already stated, we tliink tliat a theistic view of JSTature 

 is implied in his book, and we must charitably refrain 

 from suggesting the contrary until the contrary is logi- 

 cally deduced from his premises. If, however, he any- 

 where maintains that the natural causes throuo^h which 

 species are diversified operate without an ordaining 

 and directing intelligence, and that the orderly arrange- 

 ments and admirable adaptations we see all around us 

 are fortuitous or blind, undesigned results — that the 

 eye, though it came to see, was not designed for see- 

 ing, nor the hand for handling — then, we suppose, he 

 is justly chargeable with denying, and very needlessly 

 denying, all design in organic IN^ature ; otherwise, we 

 suppose not. Why, if Darwin's well-known passage 

 about the eye ^ — equivocal though some of the language 

 be — does not imply ordaining and directing intelli- 

 gence, then he refutes his own theory as effectually as 

 any of his opponents are Hkely to do. He asks : 



'' May we not believe that [under variation pro- 

 ceeding long enough, generation multiplying the bet- 

 ter variations times enough, and natural selection se- 

 curing the improvements] a living optical instrument 

 might be thus formed as superior to one of glass as the 

 works of the Creator are to those of man 1 " 



This must mean one of two things : either that the 

 living instrument was made and perfected under (which 

 is the same thing as by) an intelligent First Cause, or 

 that it was not. If it was, then theism is asserted ; 

 and as to the mode of operation, how do we know, and 

 why must we believe, that, fitting precedent forms 

 being in existence, a living instrument (so different 



* Page 188, EDgUsh edition. 



