201 
that it might be perfectly true that man originated in that way, and that 
devoutly religious men might therefore hold the Darwinian theory and also 
believe their Bible to be literally true. We believe God created all men. I 
think we should all deny the assertion that God only created the first man. 
We believe He has created all men. We make it part of our reiigion that 
we believe in God as our Creator. What do we mean by that ? We don’t 
mean that He has brought together a number of atoms from different parts 
of the world and made us just as we are at once. We believe He has made 
us by the process of generation ; that we gradually developed into our pre- 
sent state. But what then ? Does that make it the less true, at the 
same time, that He created us ? I do not think there is anything irreligious 
in believing that the first man was developed from a lower animal ; but, 
then, it does not follow that the animal had power of itself to develop us. 
That may be the opinion of Darwin, but it is by no means involved in his 
theory. It might be a power exercised upon the animal by some higher 
influence. We admit that all varieties have arisen on the principle of natural 
selection ; but in the origin of these varieties, then, do we exclude the hand 
of God ? If I find a plant, differing from all its fellows, growing in a different 
place from other plants of the same kind, I hold that that plant has come 
thus to differ by what is called the action of natural selection ; but this does 
not by any means exclude the idea that God made that plant as well as all 
the others. On this account, it struck me that the term “ religious theory ” 
was scarcely the correct term by which to designate the particular theory 
to which it was applied. I have, further, one or two remarks to make in 
the way of criticism, with reference to the arguments of Mr. Reddie. I 
think there is nothing more dangerous than bad arguments. I believe that 
bad arguments are worse than no arguments at all ; and if there be any weak- 
ness in those which have been used, I think it is our duty to point them 
out. There was an argument used by the essayist which seemed, at the 
first glance, to be very plausible— that was an argument with reference to 
language and intellect. He said animals did not seem to have an analogy to 
man, such as was necessary to make development possible, because they had 
no language. But though that may seem very plausible, it struck me as being 
really a most unsound argument ; for if you take a child born perfectly 
deaf, that child has no spoken language, it hears no sound, and it cannot be 
taught any language 
Mr. Reddie.— Oh, yes ; it can. 
Mr. Warington— It cannot be taught any language by sound; but yet 
that child develops its intellect, though unable to talk ; for it can express 
its ideas by means of signs. (Hear.) Therefore it appears to me that the 
connection of articulate speech with intellect is not essential. There must be 
speech of some kind (hear, hear) ; but it is not at all necessaiy that it should be 
articulate language. Now Mr. Reddie is not surely prepared to assert that 
t lore is no inarticulate speech amongst animals, no signs or sounds by which 
they can convey their ideas to one another. (Laughter.) For instance, you 
see a dog in the street going and fetching another dog; by which it would 
