518 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



ent powers that in the ordinary course of time living creatures such as the presen 

 were developed. The creative power remains the same in either case ; the design 

 with which that creative power was exercised remains the same. He did not 

 make the things, we may say; no, but he made them make themselves. And 

 surely this rather adds than draws force from the great argument. It seems in 

 itself something more majestic, something more befitting him to whom a thousand 

 years are as one day and one day as a thousand years, thus to impress his will once 

 for all on his creation, and provide for all its countless variety by this one original 

 impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he 

 had previously made. It has often been objected to Paley's argument, as I re- 

 marked before, that it represents the Almighty rather as an artificer than a cre- 

 ator, a workman dealing with somewhat intractable materials and showing mar- 

 velous skill in overcoming difficulties rather than a beneficent Being making all 

 things in accordance with the purposes of his love. But this objection disap- 

 pears when we put the argument into the shape which the doctrine of evolution 

 demands, and look on the Almighty as creating the original elements of matter, 

 determining their number and their properties, creating the law of gravitation 

 whereby as seems probable the worlds have been formed, creating the various 

 laws of chemical and physical action, by which inorganic substances have been 

 combined, creating above all the law of life, the mysterious law, which plainly 

 contains such wonderful possibilities within itself, and thus providing for the ulti- 

 mate development of all the many wonders of nature. 



What conception of foresight and purpose can rise above that which imagines 

 all history gathered as it were into one original creative act from which the infin- 

 ite variety of the universe has come and more is coming even yet ? 



And yet again, it is a common objection to Paley's and similar arguments 

 that, in spite of all the tokens of intelligence and beneficence in the creation, 

 there is so much of the contrary character. How much there is of apparently 

 needless pain and waste ! And John Stuart Mill has urged that either we must 

 suppose the Creator wanting in omnipotence or wanting in kindness to have left 

 his creation so imperfect. The answer usually given is that our knowledge is 

 partial, and, could we see the whole, the objection would probably disappear. 

 But what force and clearness are given to this answer by the doctrine of evolu- 

 tion, which tells us that we are looking at a work which is not yet finished, 

 and that the imperfections are a necessary part of a large design the general out- 

 liness of which we may already trace out, the ultimate issue of which, with all its 

 details, is still beyond our perception ! The imperfections are like the im- 

 perfections of a half-completed picture not yet ready to be seen; they are like 

 the bud which will presently be a beautiful flower, or the larva of a beautiful 

 and gorgeous insect; they are like the imperfections in the moral character of a 

 saint who nevertheless is changing from glory to glory. 



To the many partial designs which Paley's "Natural Theology" points out, 

 and which still remain what they were, the doctrine of evolution adds the design 

 of a perpetual progress. Things are so arranged that animals are perpetually 



