« LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



Each, moreover, had a strong case. Who could 

 reflect upon rudimentary organs, and grant Paley the 

 kind of design that would alone content him ? And 

 yet who could examine the foot or the eye, and grant 

 Mr. Darwin his denial of forethought and plan ? 



For that Mr. Darwin did deny skill and contrivance 

 in connection with the greatly preponderating part of 

 organic developments cannot he and is not now dis- 

 puted. In the first chapter of "Evolution Old and 

 Xew" I brought forward passages to show how com- 

 pletely he and his followers deny design, hut wiU here 

 quote one of the latest of the many that have appeared 

 to the same effect since "Evolution Old and New" 

 was published; it is by Mr. Eomanes, and runs as 

 follows : — 



" It is the very essence of the Darwinian hypothesis 

 that it only seeks to explain the apparently purposive 

 variations, or variations of an adaptive kind." * 



The words " apparently purposive " show that those 

 organs in animals and plants which at first sight seem 

 to have been designed with a view to the work they 

 have to do — that is to say, with a view to future 

 function — had not, according to Mr. Darwin, in reality 

 any connection with, or inception in, effort; effort in- 

 volves purpose and design; they had therefore no 

 inception in design, however much they might present 

 the appearance of being designed ; the appearance was 

 delusive; Mr. Eomanes correctly declares it to be 

 " the very essence " of Mr. Darwin's system to attempt 

 an explanation of these seemingly purposive variations 



* Nature, Nov. 12, 1885. 



