207 
views which deduce theories out of their own conceptions rather than from 
the facts of nature. Dr. Gladstone referred us to a well-known simile — that of 
Paley — of a man going across a common and striking his foot against a watch. 
Now if Paley had known more of the question, he would have seen that this was 
a had sort of simile to take for working out his theory from analogy ; because 
if a man struck his foot against a stone instead of a watch, he would have 
found, upon an examination of it, that it contained a far more complicated 
structure than was to be seen even in a watch, and that it was the work of 
a far higher power. With regard to the observations which have been made 
in reference to the Darwinian theory, — and when I make use of that term, it 
is in no spirit of calling names,— I must say that those that advance that 
there is no such thing as a Creator, or no such thing as creation, claim (I do 
not say whether they do it rightly or wrongly) Darwin as a supporter of 
what I think every one must therefore admit to be an irreligious theory. But 
take his own arguments. I have not to go simply to statements scattered here 
and there in the volume of Mr. Darwin ; I take the whole spirit of it. The 
whole gist of his argument is directed against anything like design appearing 
in creation. How does he form the eye ? I need not now go into that 
matter ; it takes a very prominent part in the Darwinian theory. No one 
can read his description of the formation of the eye, without seeing that it is 
an attempt, as unphilosophical as contrary to common sense, to account for 
such a perfect instrument without any design on the part of the Creator. 
I think any theory which attempts to get rid of that which is the most 
striking feature in God’s work, namely design, is the most irreligious theory 
that the mind of man has ever yet devised. Darwin completely fails to 
account for the marvellous structure of the eye from any principle of natural 
selection. In my opinion, if Thomas Carlyle were to give his version of 
Darwinism, he would call it “the devil-take-the-hindmost theory.” This 
monstrous theory that the stronger will always destroy the weaker, 
and that perfection comes through the destruction of the weaker, utterly 
ignores the operation of any intelligent design. Another great crux of 
Darwin’s was the formation of the cell of the common hive bee. He could 
not discover how to account for this upon the theory of “ natural selection.” 
He could not tell how the bee discovered that marvellous angle of 109 deg. 
28 min., by which it secured the greatest possible amount of space with the 
least amount of work, except that, after much trial and error, it discovered 
the square root of two to six places of decimals ! You may think I 
am travelling out of the question under discussion, but I do not think I am. 
I want to draw a very important distinction, which has not been drawn 
to-night in this discussion. I have not heard one real objection to the argu- 
ments of Mr. Reddie, with the exception of that taken by Mr. Warington wit h 
reference to the tradition about fire, which has been so ably answered by 
Dr. Irons. Therefore I think the paper is a very triumphant one. But there 
is one thing which was not argued in the paper. It is this, we have heard of 
men improving, and of men making inventions. Men can make out the 
square root of two to twenty or thirty, or even fifty places of decimals ; but 
