6 



1. That there is no God, couseqiiently no design at all in 

 nature, and no reason displayed; but that all things are due 



solely to CHANCE. 



Tiiis is the hypothesis of Lucretius and the Epicureans. 



2. That the formative energy of structure may or may not 

 be due to Grod ; but as God is unknowable, Deity is an unallow- 

 able element in philosophical considerations : in other words, 

 an agency external to the organism as originating " types is 

 not recognized. That all structures are the resultants of 



IMMANENT MOMENTA and of the POLARITIES OF SUBSTANCE J SO 



that organs and forms issue from them in accordance with con- 

 current conditions. 



This is the view of the modern Positivist. 



3. That the Creator is God, that everything is designed 

 and created by fiats, with a display of reason everywhere. 

 That no chance has interfered ; the results being generally 

 ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, both in orgaus and organisms. 



This is the view of the majority of natural theologians. 



4. That the Creator is God : but there is no design ; that 

 the existence of organisms, and therefore all organic structures, 

 has been brought about by law [evolution] ; though chance 

 has largely affected the processes of elaboration of species; 

 which processes have resulted in much imperfection. This, I 

 think, will represent the true Darwinian view. 



5. That the Creator is God. That He has created all 

 things by law [evolution] , with one partial exception or special 

 interference, viz., mcui. That design, in the ordinary sense of 

 the word, cannot be severed from many structures ; that chance 

 has largely contributed to modify special results, which never 

 rise beyond an inideal,'^ or relative state of perfection. 

 And lastly, to fully grasp the rationale of Creation, faith (not 

 credulity) and humility are as needful to the student of nature 

 as they are to the believer in revelation. 



This is the view of the present writer. 



These representations must not be regarded as being rigidly 

 exact. Indeed, it is impossible to draw up any definitions 

 which will embrace the precise opinions of all who hold 

 main ideas in common, but differ in minor details. I think, 

 however, that they will give a fair notion of the principal 

 points of diversity existing, and represent typical forms of 

 thought. In considering these views in detail, attention will be 

 given more especially to the third ; while the opinions of the 

 Positivist and of Mr. Darwin will be alluded to when dis- 



* Inideal and inideality are terms proposed to express this relative state of 

 perfection, and signify that the ideal is never reached. 



