i88 DESIGN IN NATURE 



daily moves with its most confident step and most self-satisfied smile. If this conclusion be accepted, its conse- 

 quences extend to other organs of knowledge besides those of perception. Not merely the senses, but the intellect, 

 must be judged by it ; and it is hard to see why evolution, which has so lamentably failed to produce trustworthy 

 instruments for obtaining the raw material of experience, should be credited with a larger measure of success 

 in its provision of the physiological arrangements which condition reason in its endeavours to turn experience 

 to account. . . . Natural science must ever regard knowledge as the product of irrational conditions, for in the 

 last resort it knows no others." 



While admiring Mr. Balfour's forensic abihty and dialectic skill I wholly disagree with him as to the place 

 to be assigned to the sense organs as instruments for acquiring knowledge useful for the ordinary purposes of life, 

 and also for all kinds of research, even the most abstruse. 



As I take it, nothing can be evolved which is not originally designed and potentially involved : ex nihilo nihil 

 fit. Organisms of all kinds, and sense organs in particular, are original creations : they are not haphazard, chance 

 productions, as Mr. Darwin and Mr. Balfour believe. Neither are they the outcome of spontaneous generation 

 or evolution. The organs of the simpler and more complex organisms are fundamental — that is, they make their 

 appearance at the same time as the organisms themselves. They are not after-thoughts. On the contrary, they 

 are provided by a First Cause for the well-being, guidance, and perpetuation of plants and animals. The organs 

 are, in every case, means to ends, and the information they give concerning external things, near and remote, is 

 reUable and not illusory. 



It is inconceivable that the Creator could or would have provided animals — even the most degraded — with 

 organs expressly constructed (and at the outset) to mislead and deceive, and when the argument is applied to 

 man and tested by facts it simply falls to pieces. Mr. Balfour admits that the sense organs were constructed ages 

 before they were required, and when man " was in the making." This, it appears to me, is a fatal admission to his 

 theory, as it is an unstinted acknowledgment, not of natural selection, but of prescience and design on the part 

 of the Creator. 



Natural selection, which is said to work in an accidental, haphazard, blind way, cannot possibly take the 

 place of an intelligent First Cause. Natural selection, moreover, if it really exists, which I greatly doubt, cannot 

 operate upon hving things before they are formed, and while yet in the womb of the future. 



The subject under discussion is less one of philosophy than of common sense. 



If there is one thing more certain than another in the universe it is that plants and animals are graduated 

 — man forming the apex of a pyramid with a very wide base. It is further all but certain that plants and 

 animals are arranged according to types wliich, while they occasionally approach indefinitely near, do not merge 

 into each other or lose their identity. This explains why gaps of greater or less magnitude are constantly found 

 in the flora and fauna of the globe. Each plant and animal is perfect after a fashion, and each is provided with 

 the means for guiding itself and maintaining its place in nature. The guiding power in the higher animals 

 takes the form of sense organs. In the lower animals it appears as sensitive integument, sensitive hairs, sensi- 

 tive antennae, rudimentary eyes, ears, &c. As showing the special and designed nature of the sense organs in 

 the lower animals, it happens that ever and anon a sense organ is hyper-developed, hence the compound eye 

 of the insect, the far-seeing eye of the eagle, the keen hearing of the stag, the remarkable smelling power of 

 the dog, &c. Here we have speciahsations added to original endowment. Not only special organs of sense, but 

 certain sense organs are elaborated and differentiated to achieve predetermined and definite results in particular 

 directions. 



If it be stated that the sense organs were formed countless ages before they were required, it is quite evident 

 that they cannot be the offspring of environment or of any set of external conditions ; the light can no longer be 

 regarded as forming the eye, sounding bodies the ear, smelling particles the nose, sapid substances the tongue and 

 palate, and extraneous substances the skin. 



The formation of the sense organs in the lower animals before the advent of man, and ages before they were 

 required for the guidance of the animals possessing them, effectually disposes of the claims put forth by the advocates 

 of so-called natural selection. This is one of the strongest possible arguments for design, and puts the Creator and 

 the thing created in their proper places. 



If when animals are being created they are furnished with guiding powers in the shape of sense organs or 

 otherwise, and if, further, the organs referred to are formed before they are required, it is clear that the organs are 

 part of the original animals, and absolutely necessary to its existence. This is a wide question, but it is at the 

 root of existence in the animal kingdom. Deprive an animal of its sense organs, or what represents them, and 

 the animal is doomed to death and the race to early extinction. It is impossible to conceive — or, if conceived, to 

 believe — that the sense organs on which so much intelligence and design have been lavished are added (and at 



