196 WALTER KIDD^ M.D., F.Z.S., ON 



stands the evolutionary Luther with his modern " Here 



1 am, I can do no otherwis3." One of the most fearless 

 of the Reformers stated it clearly enough in his earlier 

 days when speaking of this 'mechanical theory'*: — ''It 

 endeavours to comprise all the facts of adaptation in 

 organic nature under the saiae category of explanation as 

 those Avhich occur in inorganic nature — that is to say, 

 under the category of physical, or ascertainable, causation. 

 Indeed, unless the theory has succeeded in doing this, it 

 has not succeeded in doing anything — beyond making a 

 great noise in the world. If Mr. Darwin has not discovered 

 a new mechanical cause in the selection principle, his labour 

 has been worse than in vain." As to the noise which it has 

 made there is no doubt. But apart from the great attempted 

 revolution which he set on foot, the bye-products of Dar- 

 win's work have been of imperishable value and wide 

 interest, and his central theory has at least set in motion 

 a host of workers in biology. But when the gifted disciple 

 of Darwin went further still and said that " Science " (by 

 which, of course, the subject matter of his brilliant advocacy 

 — evolutionary doctrines — was represented), had " rendered 

 impossible the appearance in literature of any future Paley, 

 Bell, or Chalmers," he failed to see that every evolutionist of 

 them all is a Paley, Bell, or Chalmers malgre lui. 



2 In these remarks upon the evidence for Design upon the 

 earth that familiar side of the question, under which occur 

 the adaptations of organisms to their environments and 

 needs, "vvill not be considered. This side is being daily 

 reinforced by a host of biologists, wdiose labours resemble 

 for industry and unconscious benevolence tha.t of the bees 

 among entomophilous plants, laudable enough in its primary 

 object, but of wider import than they at present know. 

 Professor Schiller has latelyf discussed "Darwinism and 

 Design " from this point of view of the adaptations of 

 living nature, as the title indicates. He finds Darwinism, 

 as formulated for the jDurpose of a working theory, de- 

 structive of all teleology, not avowedly hostile to the 

 conception of a Creator, but promoting views of the origin 

 of living things which rendered a Designer or Creator super- 

 fluous, the facts of animated nature being supposed to be 

 sufficiently accounted for in other ways. Professor Schiller 



* Romanes, Darwin and after Darivin, part 1, p. 402. 

 t Contemporary Review, June, 1 897. 



