31(3 PROF. DUNS, D.J)., F.E.S.E., ETC., ON MARKS OF MIND IN NATURE. 



falls to the ground. 1 must say I liave never been able to see 

 that myself. I should like some gentleman, who has thonght 

 more on the subject than I have, to make it clear. It seems to 

 me that the argument of design is quite as strong under the theory 

 of evolution as without it. But I know it is a very common 

 thing, and I was only reading a book yesterday by Fiske in which 

 he throws discredit on the Paley argument. 



It seems to me that one sees in evolution, if evolution be true, 

 quite as much the marks of intelligence in the universe, as you do 

 in the old theory of creation. 



Mr. E. ScHiNZEL. — In the first place I wish to convey my thanks 

 to the lectui'er for the interesting paper he has been reading out 

 to us, and I am induced to make some remarks now, on account of 

 what has just been said. I am sure it is only Sir Charles Lyell 

 who has suggested that thei"e might be plan and design in the 

 evolution theory, but all other evolutionists have protested against 

 it, and have distinctly declared that there is no design. I will 

 read some observations of Darwin. In his autobiography he says, 

 " The old argiiment from design in nature fails now that the law 

 of natural selection has been discovered. There seems to be no 

 more design in the variability of organic beings than in the 

 course which the wind blows." 



Natural selection, I consider, is a naked hypothesis, unsupported 

 by facts. Hypotheses have been made before, and have often led 

 to glorious results. Sir Isaac Newton's solar system is a grand 

 and glorious hypothesis, as explaining satisfactorily all the apparent 

 movements of the heavenly bodies. A hypothesis made at random, 

 and thrown out for anyone either to believe in it or not, is a 

 worthless plaything for the fancy of sanguine visionaries. To 

 deserve general adoption it is necessary that the hypothesis should 

 supply us with a key to explain all phenomena ; each and every 

 fact must have a full recognition in the theory which is submitted 

 to our approval. But has Darwin ever attempted to explain the 

 evolution of a single organism by the process of natural selection '? 

 Hu.xley at least hit upon the sujjijosed evolution of the horse. 

 There are some links, but these links do not touch, and they 

 only prove an evolution in the mind of the Creator. 



Professor Orchard and Mr. Martin Rouse took part in the dis- 

 cussion, and the meeting terminated Avith a vote of thanks to the 

 author and Dr. Kidd for reading the paper. 



