302 
literally the ‘‘ dry boues ” of science— the descriptions of new or 
httle-known species of animals, which only a few who have devoted 
themselves particularly to the subject would care to read or could 
appreciate : we have for the most part hard facts which seem to 
have little, if any, direct application to the welfare of the human 
race. Nevertheless, however minutely we seek to trace out the 
works of Nature, there is always good to be gained, and lessons to 
be learned, that may in one way or another serve to increase the 
happiness, and contribute to the Avelbbeing of mankind. And 
enthusiasm need never flag Avhen ^ve remember, that in the details 
Ave investigate Ave are ever seeking out the laAvs of Nature, tracing 
out, hoAvever obscurcl}^, a Divine plan. No Avonder that the 
highest teachings of science become interblended AA'ith religious 
emotion ! 
In these “ Literary liemains ” of my father may be discerned a 
deeper purpose than the mere description of a iicav or obscure fossil, 
a protest against the materialistic tendencies of the age; and the 
desire to iiifliold “ The PoAver, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as 
manifested in the Creation.” Such indeed Avas the guiding idea in 
the celebrated treatises prepared under the Avill of the Earl of 
BridgeAvater (1839). In the present age such Avorks are sometimes 
looked upon as out of date, if not unscientific : a notion no doubt 
originating in the fact, that theological dogma has too often retarded 
the progress of science. Experience also teaches us that the 
elementary teaching of science and theology should be kept quite 
distinct — though the philosophy of both becomes merged.*’ 
*[P.S. — That tlie “Argument from Design” lias failed in many S 2 iecial 
instances or examples, through the teachings of Darwin, may be admitted ; 
but this does not in any Avay affect the general argument, as recently main- 
tained (in ‘Nature,’ Oct. 20tli, and Nov. 3rd, 18S1) by the Duke of Argyll. 
He observes that there are many minds “ Avho not only fail to see any 
contradiction between evolution and design, but who hold that the doctrine 
of evolution and the facts on which it is founded have supplied riclicr 
illustrations than were ever before accessible of the operations of design in 
nature.” And, he adds, “no possible amount of discovery concerning the 
physical causes of natural phenomena can affect the argument that the 
combination and co-ordination of these causes Avliicli jiroduce the ‘aiqiarent’ 
effects of purpose are really and truly what they seem to ho— tlic work of 
Mind and Will.” (See also remarks by Dr. G. J. Romanes, ‘Nature’ 
Oct. 27th, 1881.)] 
