INTRODUCTION. 7 



which shall be compatible with their having arisen 

 without being in any way connected with intelligence 

 or design. 



As it is indisputable that Mr. Darwin denied design, 

 so neither can it be doubted that Paley denied descent 

 with modification. What, then, were the wrong entries 

 in these two sets of accounts, on the detection and 

 removal of which they would be found to balance as 

 they ought ? 



Paley's weakest place, as already implied, is in the 

 matter of rudimentary organs ; the almost universal 

 presence in the higher organisms of useless, and some- 

 times even troublesome, organs is fatal to the kind of 

 design he is trying to uphold ; granted that there is 

 design, still it cannot be so final and far-forese6ing as 

 he wishes to make it out. Mr. Darwin's weak place, 

 on the other hand, lies, firstly, in the supposition that 

 because rudimentary organs imply no purpose now, 

 they could never in time past have done so — that 

 because they had clearly not been designed with an 

 eye to all circumstances and all time, they never, 

 therefore, could have been designed with an eye to 

 any time or any circumstances ; and, secondly, in 

 maintaining that "accidental," "fortuitous," "spon- 

 taneous " variations could be accumulated at all except 

 under conditions that have never been fulfilled yet, 

 and never will be ; in other words, his weak place lay 

 in the contention (for it comes to this) that there can 

 be sustained accumulation of bodily wealth, more than 

 of wealth of any other kind, unless sustained experience, 

 watchfulness, and good sense preside over the accumu- 



