73 
each animal and plant is best regarded as existing primarily 
for its own benefit. This isolation, however, is a mere act of 
the intellect and has no place in nature. Nature knows 
nothing of self-contained organisms ; what she has to do with 
is a vast network of living things bound more or less to each 
other and to the inorganic world by an intricate web of mutual 
relations. Man has a pre-eminent place in this network. If 
it is false to say, “ All things were made for man/’ it is equally 
false to say, “ Nothing was made for man.” From a purely 
biological point of view the advent of Man was the greatest 
event in the natural history of the globe. What species 
except man has domesticated a long list of other animals, and 
changed the face of the dry land by cultivation of useful 
plants ? Any geologist would admit that the facts of his 
science are in accordance with the theory that preparation 
was made for man. So that, in a higher and general sense, the 
planet may reasonably be said to have been adapted for Man 
before Man appeared. But I hardly consider this so much 
the Argument from Design as a far-reaching corollary from it 
which requires caution in its application. 
4. Let us now proceed to the other theory which is sup- 
posed to be indissolubly bound up with Design ; I mean the 
scientific dogma, sometimes called that of special creation, 
but which would be better named that of the separate or 
independent creation of distinct species. Many opponents 
of Design seem to think that they are arguing against it 
when they are really arguing against the separate creation 
of species. This is a strange misconception arising from a 
narrow notion of Purpose in Nature. To begin with, such 
a line of objection does not touch the inorganic world where 
there are no species in the proper biological sense of the 
word, and where marks of Design are very evident. Again, 
supposing, for argument’s sake, that species have originated 
by variation through unknown causes from pre-existent species, 
such variations can be conceived to have taken place according 
to a strictly pre-ordained scheme. In other words, there is 
nothing in the nature of things to prevent a Theist from 
combining a form of Evolution with Purpose or Ends. One 
thing, however, is certain, that he cannot look upon Natural 
Selection, acting upon the superfluous fecundity of Nature, as a 
key to the riddle, for, if Natural Selection can modify organs, 
it cannot create them. If some form of Evolution be the 
true account of Creation, it is not that form of it which 
derives its sole motive power from Natural Selection. The 
mode of Creation must always remain an inference, as it is 
removed from the sphere of observation and experiment. On 
