EVOLUTION AND DESIGN. 115 



Hume than all the Christian apologists put together. Philosophy 

 itself would then have produced the contrary to experience, and 

 although the variation might be trifling, still, where the question 

 of degree is excluded, the occurrence would be no less convincing 

 than if one rose from the dead. Truly, they have no call to sneer 

 at miracles who accept chance-variations. 



The Rev. J. M. Mello, M.A., F.G.S., writes :— 



I venture to send a few remarks on Mr. G. Cox Bompas's paper 

 on Evolution and Design, for I quite agree with him that " Evolu- 

 tion is Design." The late Professor W. Clerk Maxwell in a clever 

 parody of one of the British Association Addresses, tells us how 

 the philosopher bids us contemplate " the seeds of the mighty 

 world." 



" The pure elementary atom, the iiuit of mass and of thought, 

 Which by foi'ce of mere juxtaposition to life and sensation is brought, 

 So down through untold generations transmission of structureless germs 

 Enables our race to inheiit the thoughts of beasts, fishes and worms." 



Thus we are in our highest development the outcome of a 

 long process of evolution according to that hypothesis which is now 

 so widely accepted, although it is still confronted with more than 

 one serious difficulty. 



But granting that its truth be finally established, and that the 

 old view of special creations of species, or at least of genera accord- 

 ing to definite plans give place to the newer theory and be regarded 

 as untenable, I do not, I must confess, see how this would in the 

 slightest degree affect my belief in design in creation ; it would not 

 relegate to chance or to " a fortuitous concourse of atoms " the 

 wonderful adaptation to environment, the fitness of special orgaiis 

 for special purposes which we see on every side of us, and which, 

 by whatever means or process of change these may have been 

 brought into existence are clear evidences of Thought and there- 

 fore of Design. There are some who may sneer at what they term 

 "the carpenter-theory" of the Universe; but is that which it 

 implies the less true ? If we can see the adaptation of means to an 

 end in man's work, we do not say " Oh, that is a mere matter of 

 chance," but we at once recognize underlying the complicated 

 machine, or the simple tool, the previously existing plan, the 

 evidence in them of a set purpose, and from this we rightly 

 assume that a thinking mind, a Personal Thought, not blind 

 nnreasoning forces, must have been the ultimate cause of what 

 we see. 



Does it not stand to reason that you cannot bring out of a thing 

 that which has not been first placed in it ; you cannot bring out of 

 it more than was placed in it ; in other words you cannot " evolve " 

 that which was not first " involved." 



