6 EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW. 



to it, as a human architect would construct his build- 

 ing," * — and the denial of all plan or purpose whatever. 

 There can be no question but that he is right here. To 

 talk of a " designer " who has no tangible existence, no 

 organism with which to think, no bodily mechanism 

 with which to carry his purposes into effect ; whose design 

 is not design inasmuch as it has to contend with no 

 impediments from ignorance or impotence, and who thus 

 contrives but by a sort of make-believe in which there 

 is no contrivance; who has a familiar name, but nothing 

 beyond a name which any human sense has ever been 

 able to perceive — this is an abuse of words — an attempt 

 to palm off a shadow upon our un erstandings as 

 though it. were a substance. It is plain therefore that 

 there must either be a designer who "becomes an 

 organism, designs a plan, &c.," or that there can be no 

 designer at all and hence no design. 



We have seen which of these alternatives Professor 

 Haeckel has adopted. He holds that those who accept 

 evolution are bound to reject all " purposiveness." And 

 here, as I have intimated, I differ from him, for reasons 

 which will appear presently. I believe in an organie 

 and tangible designer of every complex structure, for 

 so long a time past, as that reasonable people will be 

 incurious about all that occurred at any earlier time. 



Professor Clifford, again, is a fair representative of 

 opinions which are finding favour with the majority of 

 our own thinkers. He writes : — 



" There are here some words, however, which require 

 careful definition. And first the word purpose. A 



* ' History of Creation,' vol. i p. 73 (H. S. King and Co., 1876). 



