6 
1. That there is no God, consequently no design at all in 
nature, and no reason displayed ; but that all things are due 
solely to CHANCE. 
This is the hypothesis of Lucretius and the Epicureans. 
2. That the formative energy of structure may or may not 
be due to God ; 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 33 is 
not recognized. That all structures are the resultants of 
IMMANENT MOMENTA and of the POLARITIES OF SUBSTANCE ; 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 organs 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., man. 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. 
