280 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
no other logical objection to the statement, that the 
movements of the planets afford as good evidence of 
the influence of guiding angels as they do of the in- 
fluence of gravitation. 
So much, then, for the illogical position that, granting 
the evidence in favour of natural descent and super- 
natural design to be equal and parallel, we should 
hesitate in our choice between the two theories. But, 
of course, if the evidence is supposed zo¢ to be equal 
and parallel—i.e. if it is supposed that the theory of 
natural selection is not so good a theory whereby to 
explain the facts of adaptation as is that of super- 
natural design,—then the objection is no longer the one 
which we are considering. It is quite another objection, 
and one which is not prima facie absurd. Therefore 
let us state clearly the distinct question which thus 
arises. 
Innumerable cases of adaptation of organisms to 
their environments are the observed facts for which an 
explanation is required. To supply this explanation, 
two, and only two, hypotheses are in the field. Of 
these two hypotheses one is intelligent design mani- 
fested directly in special creation; the other is natural 
causation operating through countless ages of the past. 
Now, the adaptations in question involve an innumer- 
able multitude of special mechanisms, in most cases 
even within the limits of any one given species ; but 
when we consider the sum of all these mechanisms 
presented by organic nature as a whole, the mind 
must indeed be dull which does not feel astounded. 
For, be it further observed, these mechanical con- 
trivances’ are, for the most part, no merely simple 
1 It is often objected to Darwin's terminology, that it embraces such 
