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 paper. 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 two 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, 
