396 
them, is an evidence of some design. Mr. Row thinks we should be sure what 
that design is before we adduce the fact as evidence of design at all u 
do not agree with that view, for it may show that there is a design, altho 
what that design is we are not in a position to say. The paper before 
rather avoids the ordinarily-adopted ground of giving instances of dmgn md 
^adaptation, and simply shows us that where we find certain arran^ments^ 
geological strata, where we should not expect such formations here^must 
have been some directing mind to place them in those positio . _ 
anticipating the objection raised by Mr. Row, Mr. Howard says m his 
30th paragraph— , , , on fa „ 
“Tf flip design is fullv within our grasp, there is clearly no proof so iai 
ours, which we may reverently study, but can never fathon . 
I think Mr. Row is wrong in saying that the paper contains no evidence of 
design. We fincl such evidence m the 2nd paragraph, -where 
Then further on, in the 3rd paragraph, we find this : 
“ Put the general tendency of these forces is the mixture of the elements 
tion, we find "that the elementary bodies are distributed with the most per 
plexing inequality.’' 
This is another instance of the proof of design. Then we go on further, and 
in the 23rd paragraph we find this passage _ . , 
T - 
thorn ? and how comes it that in one vein we find copper ore, or, stranger 
lX.»ctlc c^ci, in another lead ore, in another tin, m another stiver 1 
This again, is evidence of design, but what the design may be, we cannot 
say' ’ The lesign may bo that these metals shall be brought wtthm reach of 
the inhabitants' of the earth, to be worked by them. Then Mr. Howard say. 
in his 29th paragraph— 
