DISCUSSION 131 



God intervened three times in the course of creation ; 

 I maintain that only one action was necessary. 

 In his first lecture, Father Wasmann showed that 

 we should have but a poor idea of God, if we 

 thought it needful for Him to interfere at every 

 turn, in order that all things should follow their 

 normal course. I fully agree with Father Wasmann 

 on this subject, and I think that my conception of 

 God, as intervening only once 9 is a far higher con- 

 ception than that of Father Wasmann, who 

 imagines God to have intervened three times.' 



If Professor Dahl is in a position to prove 

 that we need not assume any subsequent inter- 

 vention on the part of the Creator, in order 

 to account for the origin, first of life, and then 

 of the intelligent soul of man, I will gladly 

 accept his view of God, but he has not supplied 

 us with any such proof. 



With reference to the question of design in nature 

 Professor Dahl said : ' I wish to state in general 

 terms that the theory of selection is the only one 

 which can take the place of that of beneficial 

 purpose. On that one point I am in complete 

 accord with Father Wasmann.' * 



1 There is a misunderstanding here. Neither in my second lecture nor 

 in my published works had I any intention of saying that the theory of 

 selection ought to take the place of that of beneficial purpose, but only that 

 the former ought to be the complement of the latter. Unless we presuppose 

 the existence of some immanent directive principle, selection has no object 

 at all, and I have often pointed this out. Cf. my remarks upon Plate's 

 speech, p. 106, etc. 



