394 
otherwise, we should expect to find that all the materials of the universe 
were alike, and therefore such a variation would, no doubt prove the 
presence of some power which has prevented the whole from being use 
in a common homogeneous mass. But I cannot find m the paper what 
are the distinct points of design which Mr. Howard supposes the paper 
to prove ; there is a great deal of interesting matter m it but I want to 
know what this has to do with proving the presence of design, or as I 
should like to call it, adaptation, because the term design w, . 
been used, open to considerable objections, and it is better to get nd o 
those objections. But the real question at issue in these modern days s 
not so much the foot of the presence of adaptation, for that I believe . 
conceded by all unbelievers, but the cause of it. It is whether adapt - 
tion proves the presence of Intelligence. This is the 
which we want particularly to turn attention to-for I apprehend that 
none of our physical philosophers deny the plain fact that there are certain 
things which prove adaptation-and it is not dealt with m this paper. I 
have no particular complaint to make with regard to the contots of 
paper in relation to its facts, and I agree with Dr Fisher that in t e 
present day one of the most important wants in this controversy is 
succession of clear definitions, or else we shall fall into an mconceivable 
mass of confusion. For example, Dr. Fisher selected that term nature , 
I forget how many senses it bears in natural science, according to the Duke 
of Argyll in The Rngn of Lm > ; but in Webster’s Dictionary it has fourteen 
different senses, and “ law” twenty-seven ; and our whole argument depen 
on the sense in which we use these words. If I mean y na ure ‘ 
terial universe, there is something intelligible in the use of the term, but 
if I include in it man and his volition, it becomes a wholly different idea 
We should not allow confusion of that kind to exist. T ra c °" ' 
very common, not only in scientific but in theological treatises on the sub ect 
of miracles. Then the phrase “forces of nature” is also very misleading. 
I am inclined to think that this has caused a great deal of the confus o 
into which we have at present fallen, for I cannot take up any book, 
theological or philosophical, without finding these terms used with an inter- 
changeable meaning. There is one thing I consider of great importance, 
that It by no means follows, because we cannot find traces of adaptation in 
some cases, that that invalidates the proof in those cases where we do find 
it It is often argued that there are certain things to which it is impos- 
sible to assign a use ; but suppose that is so, does it by one single atom 
invalidate those cases where the adaptation and the use are as dear as the 
sun in the heavens 1 I apprehend not. (Cheers) We may not be able to 
understand the whole of a complicated piece of machinery, but that d 
not get rid of the fact that certain parts of the machine show adaptation 
which we «an understand. Mr. Howard’s paper professes to deal with that 
