Classtfication. 4I 
upon the theory of special creation. Therefore, the 
only possible way in which all this uniform body of 
direct evidence can be met by a supporter of the 
latter theory, is by falling back upon the argument 
from ignorance. We do not know, it may be said, 
what hidden reasons there may have been for fol- 
lowing all these general principles in the separate 
creation of specific types. Now, it is evident that 
this is a form of argument which admits of being 
brought against all the actual—and even all the 
possible—lines of evidence in favour of evolution. 
Therefore I deem it desirable thus early in our pro- 
ceedings to place this argument from ignorance on its 
proper logical footing. 
If there were any independent evidence in favour of 
special creation as a fac¢, then indeed the argument 
from ignorance might be fairly used against anysceptical 
cavils regarding the method. In this way, for example, 
_ Bishop Butler made a legitimate use of the argument 
from ignorance when he urged that it is no reasonable 
objection against a revelation, otherwise accredited, to 
show that it has been rendered in a form, or after a 
method, which we should not have antecedently ex- 
pected. But he could not have legitimately employed 
this argument, except on the supposition that he had 
some independent evidence in favour of the revela- 
tion; for, in the absence of any such independent 
evidence, appeal to the argument from ignorance 
would have become a mere begging of the question, 
by simply assuming that a revelation had been made. 
And thus it is in the present case. A man, of course, 
may quite legitimately say, Assuming that the theory of 
special creation ts true, it is not for us to anticipate the 
