300 Jan. 5, 
Price.] 
consistent foundation? God’s order is the source of all science and philoso- 
phy. But Darwin neither acknowledges nor denies the ruling of the 
Deity ; he invokes not His aid in the processes of nature ; nor yet does he 
deify nature, but says this of her: ‘It is difficult to avoid personi fying 
the word nature ; but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and 
product of many laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained 
by us.”? It is obvious that the effect of the theory is displacement of God 
from His works and from the mind of the naturalist. But the laws of 
nature could not exist without nature had a Creator, and law a Law 
Maker. Darwin admits that the ‘highest intellects that have ever lived,”’ 
have believed ‘there exists a Creator and Ruler,’”’ but his theory makes 
no account of Him. He would make nature Godless. 
While Darwin’s theory undertakes to rise from a few simple first forms 
of life to higher and more complicated, he denies any purpose of a designer 
to perfect his works, or any general tendency in nature to do so. He says, 
‘whatever may be thought of this view, in none of the foregoing cases 
do the facts, as far as I can judge, afford any evidence of the existence of 
an innate tendency towards perfectibility or progressive development.’ 
Tb. 132. The variations spring from individuals ; but from what cause or 
with what purpose is not explained. The mass of the species remained 
unchanged, and so live on through many geological periods. He says, 
“ Geology tells us that some of the lowest forms, as the infusoria and rizo- 
pods have remained for an enormous period in nearly their present state.” 
Tb. p. 123. “I believe that many lowly organized forms now exist through- 
out the world, from various causes. In some cases, variations or individual 
differences of a favorable nature may never have arisen for natural selec- 
tion to act on and accumulate. Inno case, probably, has time sufficed for 
the utmost possible amount of development. In some few cases there has 
been what we must call retrogression of organization.”’ p. 124. All, there- 
fore, has come from chance individual variations. Thus all higher life, 
man included, has been lifted up, by chance-coming variations, generated 
in the lowest and lower forms of animal life, without purpose, design, or 
Designer: though the result is the exalted being man ! 
ITmake this statement with due care: He says, as to the mode of 
transition, ‘there is no reason to doubt that the swim-bladder has been 
converted into lungs, or an organ used exclusively for respiration. Accord- 
ing to this view it may be in ferred that all vertebrate animals with true 
lungs have descended by ordinary gene ration from an ancient and unknown 
prototype, which was furnished with a floating apparatus or swim-blad- 
der.”? Ib. 183. This does not except the vertebrateman. He insists upon 
placing man in the order Quadrumana ; says, “Tf man had not been his 
own classifier, he would never have thought of founding a separate order 
for his own reception.’’ 1 Descent of Man, 183. He further says, ‘‘we 
will now look to man as he exists ; and we shall, [ think, be able partially 
to restore during successive periods, but not in due order of time, the 
structure of our early progenitors. This can be effected by means of the 
rudiments which man still retains, by the characters which occasionally’ 
