292 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. 



Mr. Wallace " declares that the opponents of evolution 

 present a less elevated view of the Almighty. He says : 

 " Why should we supi)ose the machine too complicated to 

 have been designed by the Creator so comi)lete that it 

 would necessarily work out harmonious results ? The 

 theory of * continual interference ' is a limitation of the Cre- 

 ator's power. It assumes that He could not work by j)ure 

 law in tlie organic, as Ho has done in the inorganic worhl." 

 Thus, then, there is not only no necessary antagonism be- 

 tween the general theory of "evolution" and a Divine ac- 

 tion, but the compatibility between the two is recognized 

 by naturalists who cannot be susj>ected of any strong theo- 

 loijcical bias. 



The very same may be said as to the special Darwinian 

 form of the theory of evolution. 



It is true Mr. Darwin writes sometimes as if he thought 

 that his theory militated against even derioatloe creation.^* 

 This, however, there is no doubt, was not really meant ; and 

 indeed, in the passage before quoted and criticised, the 

 possil)ility of the Divine ordination of each variation is 

 spoken of as a tenable view. He says (" Origin of S])ecies," 

 p. 5G9) : " I see no good reason why the views given in this 

 volume should shock the religious feelings of any one ; " and 

 he speaks of life "having been originally breathed by the 

 Creator into a few forms or into one," which is '}nore than 

 the dogma of creation actually requires. We find, then, that 

 no z/icompatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers wor- 



<' " Natural Selection," p. 280. 



*8 Dr. Asa Gray, e. g., has thus understood Mr. Darwin. The doctor 

 says in hia pamphlet, p. 38: ** Mr. Darwin uses expressions which imply 

 that the natural forms which surround us, because they have a histtny 

 or natural sequence, could have been only generally, but not particularly 

 designed — a view at once superficial and contradictory ; whereas his 

 true line should be, that his hypothesis concerns the order and not tho 

 cause, the how and not the wliy of the phenomena, and so leaves tho 

 question of design just where it was before." 



