74 DARWINIAN A. 



the collision of the individuals with one another, or 

 with the surroundings. The original impulse, which 

 we once supposed .was in the line of the observed move- 

 ment, only proves to have been in a different direc- 

 tion ; but the series of movements took place with a 

 series of results, each and all of them none the less 

 determined, none the less designed. 



Wherefore, when, at the close, you quote Laplace, 

 that " the discoveries of science throw final causes far- 

 ther back," the most you can mean is, that they con- 

 strain us to look farther back for the impulse. They 

 do not at all throw the argument for design farther 

 back, in the sense of furnishing evidence or presump- 

 tion that only the primary impulse was designed, and 

 that all the rest followed from chance or necessity. 



Evidence of design, I think you will allow, every- 

 where is drawn from the observation of adaptations 

 and of results, and has really nothing to do with any- 

 thing else, except where you can take the word for the 

 will. And in that case you have not argument for 

 design, but testimony. In Nature we have no testi- 

 mony ; but the argument is overwhelming. 



Now, note that the argument of the olden time that 

 of Paley, etc., which your skeptic found so convincing 

 was always the argument for design in the movement 

 of the balls after dfflection. For it was drawn from 

 animals produced by generation, not by creation, and 

 through a long succession of generations or deflections. 

 Wherefore, if the argument for design is perfect in the 

 case of an animal derived from a long succession of 

 individuals as nearly alike as offspring is generally like 

 parents and grandparents, and if this argument is not 



