Introduction 17 
again, who spoke so wisely and so well about design would 
not for a moment hear of descent with modification. 
Each, moreover, had a strong case. Who could reflect 
upon rudimentary organs, and grant Paley the kind of 
design that alone would 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 be and is not now disputed. In the 
first chapter of ‘‘ Evolution Old and New” I brought 
forward passages to show how completely he and his 
followers deny design, but will 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. 
Romanes, and runs as follows :— 
“It is the very essence of the Darwinian hypothesis that 
it only seeks to explain the apparently purposive varia- 
tions, 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 involves 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. Romanes correctly 
declares it to be “ the very essence” of Mr. Darwin's 
system to attempt an explanation of these seemingly 
purposive variations 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 
* “Nature,” Nov. 12, 1885. 
B 
