381 DAEWJNIANA. 



the marks of purpose, and so carries the implication 

 of design. The case is adduced as part of the evi- 

 dence that Darwinian evolution supersedes design. 

 But how ? Not certainly in the way this goes on from 

 generation to generation ; therefore, doubtless in the 

 way it began. So we look for the explanation of how 

 it came about at the first unintentionally or acciden- 

 tally ; how, under known or supposed conditions, it 

 must have happened, or at least was likely to hap- 

 pen. And we read, " A spontaneous variation oc- 

 curred, consisting in the passage of one eye to the 

 opposite side of the head." That is all; and we 

 suppose there is nothing more to be said. In short, 

 this surprising thing was undesigned because it took 

 place, and has taken place ever since ! The writer 

 presumes, moreover (but this is an obiter dictum\ that 

 the peculiarity originated long after flounders had 

 fixed the habit of swimming on one side (and in this 

 particular case it is rather difficult to see how the two 

 may have gone on pari passu), and so he cuts away 

 all obvious occasion for the alteration through the 

 summation of slight variations in one direction, cadi 

 bringing some advantage. 



This is a strongly-marked case ; but its features, 

 although unusually prominent, are like those of the 

 general run of the considerations by which evolution 

 is supposed to exclude design. Those of the penul- 

 timate citation and its context are all of the same 

 stamp. The differences which begin as variations are 

 said to be spontaneous a metaphorical word of wide 

 meanings are inferred to be casual (whereas we only 

 know them to be occult), or to be originated by sur- 



