42 



of usefulness, — if I see that order in nature, I cannot see how people 

 can dispute that there is the presence of mind also. In finding my room 

 put to rights, I see the presence of mind simply because of the order 

 and arrangement which I find there ; and in the universe I think the 

 same argument holds good, quite apart from the utilitarian processes of 

 design, and therefore I infer the presence of Deity. I think it would have 

 been better if Mr. Henslow had pointed out these distinctions at the be- 

 ginning of his 23aper. The want of stating this point clearly, has led to much 

 confusion in popular thought upon the subject, and has enabled people to 

 offer objections founded upon the imperfections we see in nature against the 

 existence of a Creator. There are tw^o or three other points which I should 

 like briefly to allude to, and the first of them relates to the rudimentary 

 organs. It seems to me, as Dr. Rigg has said, that the only correct view is 

 to suppose that there is an idea in the Creator's mind, and that He has 

 determined to carry out creation on a definite plan, the separate parts of 

 which we may not always be able to see the direct use of. Mr. Henslow has 

 said that some of the rudimentary organs are of this description, and has 

 especially instanced the case of the wings of certain kinds of birds. But the 

 argument that adaptation proves the presence of mind is general, and does 

 not rest for its validity on a particular instance. It is not the wing of the 

 bird taken by itself which proves the adaptation, but in a vast number of 

 things all concurring to effectuate a common end. It is not merely the wing 

 of the bird which furnishes us with the idea ' of adaptation, but the atmo- 

 spheric air, the power of gravitation, and a variety of things which are cor- 

 related to it, such as those mentioned by the Duke of Argyll in his Reign of 

 Law. So we may run through many of the structures of nature ; they are 

 correlated one to another in a very remarkable manner, and from them we 

 must infer the presence of mind, whether we call it design or not. We 

 all know that the air is adapted to a vast variety of uses, and that it is 

 wonderfully adapted to the present condition of man, and we reason 

 wrongly in confining the idea of design simply to one particular thing, such 

 as the bird's wing and its uses. The whole of its parts, the air in which 

 it moves, and the law of gravitation, should be included in that idea. 

 Mr. Henslow's observations on perfection are very valuable. It is a 

 mistake to lay down the rigid rule that all the works of the Creator 

 must be in themselves absolutely perfect, for if they were all absolutely 

 perfect there would be no variation in creation at all. To speak of man 

 as being created absolutely perfect seems to me to be a mistake, and 

 I was never more sensible of it than on one occasion when I was 

 present at a debate between Mr. Bradlaugh and an advocate of 

 Christianity ; and the use which Mr. Bradlaugh made of the theory of the 

 absolute perfection of man as originally created was exceedingly damaging. 

 We must view the Creator's work as having a relative perfection, and I 

 think Mr. Henslow's remarks are very valuable on this point. With 

 regard to the subject of chance, Mr. Henslow has overlooked one portion of 

 it. Let me give one more illustration to show the " chance," as we call it, 



