60 PROFESSOE DUNS ON THE 



advance of science. There is another point to which I should like to refer. 

 On the last page but one of the paper the Author says : " There are others, 

 again, who, like Asa Gray, accepting his system and working for its illustra- 

 tion, yet hold that it is not inconsistent with theism. It is doubtful, however, 

 if this view be of any real value either to science or religion." It may not 

 be of much value to science or religion, but it is of considerable use in our 

 discussions, as frequently enabling us to maintain that to grant a great deal 

 in the way of development and a great deal in the way of evolution is not 

 absolutely inconsistent with theism. In this way we get a standing-point 

 on which our ideas may be brought into touch with those who have 

 acquired the notion that science is destructive of religion, and I think we 

 are enabled to make good use of this in drawing attention to facts which 

 perhaps they have never observed. (Hear, hear.) I for one fully believe 

 that a large amount of evolution is perfectly consistent with theism, and 

 that in all probability there may be, ultimately, a very considerable amount 

 of compromise between the idea of evolution and that of contrivance. 

 At the same time, I think it important to remember that the theory of 

 natural selection does not account for everything, and that, even if we 

 go back to development and evolution in their easiest and most general 

 application, we must still believe in the power of adaptation and the power 

 of evolution having been impressed on things from the very beginning. This 

 is an argument which I have found to be of very great use. I remember 

 that on one occasion, while 1 was in India, an educated native came to me, 

 bringing with him two friends whom he had induced to accompany him in 

 order that they might see how he would smash up the padre. He 

 challenged me to a discussion on this point, and he maintained that there 

 was no proof of the existence of God, inasmuch as natural law governed 

 everything. I asked him. What governed natural law ? where natural 

 law came from ? The poor man, much to his chagrin and somewhat to the 

 complacent delight of the two gentlemen he had brought with him, 

 was obliged to retire from the contest. I am not sure that a more 

 eminent scientific man than he would have retired quite so quickly, 

 but I do believe we can find a useful standpoint between ourselves 

 and those who have been puzzled by the assumptions of evolutionism, if 

 we abstain from maintaining that the evolution doctrine'is utterly in- 

 consistent with theism. There may be in evolutionism much that is con- 

 sistent with theism. I think in the paper before us we have many 

 points that it would be very difficult for an evolutionist who takes a broad 

 view of the whole question, to satisfactorily overcome ; and I think that, as 

 Mr. James has suggested, it is just here that evolutionism falls short, 

 namely, that its advocates do not take a broad view. Indeed, on the 

 contrary, it seems to me that they take a very narrow view. (Hear, hear.) 

 They look at one particular mode of development and advancement in the 

 organisation of species until they get the theory thoroughly into their 

 beads, and then they maintain that, because it is their prevailing idea, 

 therefore, the same thing must hold good with regard to the world at large. 



