PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OP THE ARGUMENT PROM DESIGN. 201 



do not think, as Christians, that we are bound to consider that 

 Biology and Science can find out God. They cannot do it, but still 

 they point to God. They point beyond themselves to Him. 

 Hence it is that we cannot, even tentatively, account for the 

 Universe. We cannot even use the language of Biology or Science 

 itself, unless, as Dr. Bernard pointed out, we have the postulate of 

 a Divine Being — a design, and then there must be a Designer. 



The Rev. A. K. Cherrill, M.A. — I should like to say a few 

 words about the scope of the argument from design. It seems to 

 me that the whole argument has suffered a very considerable change 

 in scope and direction of late since Evolution has come so much 

 forward. In the old times, before Evolution was much thought 

 of, when Pa ley brought forward his argument from design in 

 the way that has just been described, there was this objection 

 taken against it by unbelievers, and it appeared to be a very 

 formidable one : they said, " Design will pi'ove a Designer, of 

 course, but it will not prove any more: It will not prove a God or 

 a Creator of Infinite Power — but on the contrary, the very idea 

 of design involves a finite power, an adaptation of means and ends 

 in using and dealing with material. So that the most you can 

 prove by the argument from design is a finite dealing with 

 matter, the work of one who had to do the best he could with 

 matter and to use contrivance and design in order to bring about 

 his purposes !" That seemed to be a formidable answer when the 

 argument from design was brought forward to prove the existence 

 of a God, for if He were infinite He would be capable of producing 

 such effects immediately without the necessity for contrivance 

 and design. Then came the theory of Evolution, which, as has 

 been well pointed out at the conclusion of the Paper, turned the 

 whole argument, as it were, quite round, for it proceeded on the 

 adaptation of creatures to their en virion ments ; trying to make 

 out that the whole world had resulted in that way — that it had 

 been formed from some primitive state of things by a long 

 process in which, by gradual changes, creatures had become 

 adapted to their environments. Those same elaborate adaptations 

 that had formerly been put forth as proving a designer, were 

 taken up by Evolutionists, and were said to prove the theory of 

 Evolution. It was adaptation looked at from the opposite point 

 of view. But it seems to me that some Evolutionists have rather 

 failed to recognize that the same objection which Agnostics 



