287 
responsibility to the Creator, at the same time introducing the subject 
of creation in general. Some of the earlier parts of the paper I consider 
exceedingly well presented, especially those referring to the various ar- 
rangements in nature, from which we must infer a Creator. I may, 
perhaps, say that among those things from which we generally deduce 
the argument from design, I myself stumbled on one, which I have not 
yet seen in print, but which I have several times adduced in arguments I 
have had with Secularists and Atheists. On one occasion I offered to stake 
the argument from design upon it, but the challenge was not replied to. 
The point is this—that when we consider what we see in the world around 
us, there is scarcely any single thing which furnishes so strong an argument 
for the existence of a Creator as a fact which, perhaps, has been very little 
thought of in this connexion, namely, that, as astronomy teaches us, the 
earth is constantly subject to two distinct motions, the first being that by 
which it spins round on its own axis with tremendous velocity ; and the 
second, that by which it performs its enormous orbit round the sun, a circuit 
which is also made at a marvellous rate of speed. Now, when we come to 
think of it, the world could not be inhabited unless it were so arranged 
that these tremendous movements should be imperceptible to the creatures 
upon its surface—and, as a matter of fact, so imperceptible are both 
these movements that a very long time elapsed before the people living 
upon the planet became aware of them. This imperceptibility of the move- 
ments of the earth I regard as a strong argument in favour of the probability 
that the world was prepared for habitation before man appeared upon it. 
The arrangements, whatever they are, by which this result is attained,— 
such, for instance, as the existence of the atmosphere,—must be the effect 
of various complex causes, which certainly seem very plainly to indicate 
that the earth was intended for the habitation of beings for whom 
it was essential that they should not be conscious of its motions through 
space, and who must be sheltered against what might otherwise be 
the effect of those motions during every moment of their lives. On 
page 257 there is a most able exposure of a very common fallacy as 
to the word “homogeneous.” A great many people who read the works of 
Herbert Spencer are much misled by the use of this word, and there can be 
no doubt that it is used in a very vague way. It is one of those con- 
venient words which, much more than the expression “ anthropomorphic,” 
conceal great confusion of thought. As far as the Greek word 
“ homogeneous” goes, it simply means “of the same kind,” and I fancy 
this gets so fixed in people’s heads, that when they talk of the original 
nebula being homogeneous they suppose it was all of one kind. I 
think, however, when we come to reflect upon it, we shall find there is no 
reason to suppose that matter at the beginning was all of one kind. If by 
homogeneous is simply meant a nebula of uniform consistence,—which is 
probably what Herbert Spencer means,—then, as Mr. Blencowe shows, 
it is not really homogeneous, for the nebula consists of atoms of the 
elements of which we at present know sixty-three ; therefore, it is not 
y 2 
