59 



is held to be evidence that the watch was specially contrived 

 to that end ; on the ground that the only cause we know of, 

 competent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall 

 keep time, is a contriving intelligence adapting the means 

 directly to that end. Suppose, howevei*, that any one had been 

 able to show that the watch had not been made directly by 

 any person, but that it was the result of the modification of 

 another watch which kept time but poorly ; and that this again 

 had proceeded from a structure which could hardly be called 

 a watch at all, seeing that it had no figures on the dial, and 

 the hands were rudimentary ; and that, going back and back 

 in time, we came at last to a revolving barrel as the earliest 

 traceable rudiment of the whole fabric. And imagine that it 

 had been possible to show that all these changes had resulted, 

 first, from a tendency in the structure to vary indefinitely ; 

 and, secondly, from something in the surrounding world which 

 helped all variations in the direction of an accurate time- 

 keeper, and checked all those in other; directions; then it is 

 obvious that the force of Paley's argument would be gone. 

 For it would be demonstrated that an apparatus thoroughly 

 well adapted to a particular purpose might be the result of a 

 method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as 

 well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to 

 that end. Now, it appears to us that we have here, for illustra- 

 tion's sake, supposed to be done with the watch what the 

 establishment of Darwin's theory will do for the world."* 



Well, if Paley's argument remain in force until we are able 

 to produce a developed watch, my impression is it will last a 

 long time ; and, if Darwin's theory must wait for proof until 

 that watch is discovered, then the process of proof will reach 

 at least as far into the future as the process of the evolution 

 of species reaches into the past. True, Huxley puts this 

 illustration forward as a supposition ; but, I ask, does it not 

 seem like an insult to common sense? Teleology remains 

 unmoved by such theories as these, — theories which one can 

 only rightly describe, in the graphic phrase of Carlyle, as 

 " diluted insanity." 



We have now considered Huxley's opinion of Darwin's 

 researches and theories; but how very differently some men of the 

 highest scientific attainments interpret them may be gathered 

 f'roni the following eloquent words of Professor Pritchard: — " I 

 know of no greater intellectual treat — I might even call it moral 

 — than to takeDarwin's most charmingbook onTJie Fertilisation 



Laij i'n'riiKinx, pp. :)()1 -2. 



