272 PEOMSSOR E. L. DABNEY^ D.D., LL.D. 



cause of an explosion. But the why of this result is not explained by the 

 occurrence of the explosion. 



In physiology we know that each organ in the body performs its own 

 definite function, and none other ; also, that the several functions of organs 

 are influenced by immaterial causes, as the emotions, &c. The fact we 

 know ; the why remains mysterious and unknown. 



And so with particular causes of diseases, and action of drugs employed in 

 treatment. The fact that definite eifects follow the causes and the drugs 

 is matter of actual experience. The why, — that is, the ultimate cause, in 

 the one case as in the other, — is unrevealed. 



Materialists assert that the phenomena of mind differ rather in degree than 

 in hind from the phenomena of matter. 



As a matter of fact, as little is known of the ultimate and occult pro- 

 perties of matter as there is known of the corresponding properties and 

 faculties of mind. As expressed by Baxter — '" Men who believe that dead 

 matter can produce the effects of life and reason, are a hundred times 

 more credulous than the most thorough-paced believer that ever existed." 



The Chairman. — I wish the author had been here to have answered 

 the friendly criticisms that have been made upon his paper. The point 

 to which our attention has been called in regard to the answer of the 

 evolutionist as to the formation and growth of the fowl in the egg, points 

 to one of those curious things that have always passed my comprehension. 

 It is assumed, undoubtedly for a very good reason, as we see that such is 

 the case in nature, that the influence of heredity is an immense power ; but 

 what right have we, from the theory of pure natural selection, to assume any- 

 thing of the kind ? What right have we to assume that extraordinary 

 persistency of type which is one of the most remarkable characteristics of all 

 animals ? Granting, for the sake of argument, that the peculiar transforma- 

 tions undergone by the embryo are a proof of the past history of the race, 

 how can we, from the characteristics before us, form a conclusion as to 

 the cause of this ? But there is, of course, the other possible explanation, 

 that those singular points which are appealed to as evidences of past 

 history, are evidences, not of past history, but of the present position of 

 the animal in the scheme of creation. This is as much in favour of the 

 teleological point of view as it is in favour of the evolutionist. We have to 

 thank the author for a most interesting paper. 



Mr. D. M'Laren.— In section 20 of the paper, the author speaks of the 

 "wondrous adaptations in the chemical facts of inorganic nature, in the 

 mechanism of the heavenly bodies, in the facts of meteorology," the slightest 

 derangement of which would be fatal to the whole of the existing animal 

 creation. Have the evolutionists attempted to notice or explain the adjust- 

 ment of the masses, and forces, and distances of the heavenly bodies, as 

 bearing on the argument in favour of teleology ? 



The Chairman. — As far as my reading goes, there is absolutely no modern 

 argument in that direction. Undoubtedly, a few centuries back the alche- 



