91 
Rev. Prebendary Row, M.A. — I feel some difficulty in offering any remarks 
upon Mr. James’s paper, because it is one with which I very cordially agree. 
Generally speaking, one can make more effective remarks upon points 
with which one does not agree, than with regard to those with which 
one does agree. The attempts which are being made at the present time 
to ignore the arguments from design - perhaps it had better be termed 
adaptation, because when we speak of design we are charged with assuming 
the existence of a designer — are very extraordinary. I find that this 
charge, of assuming the existence of a designer is one which is constantly 
being made against us ; but I do not doubt that those who make the 
charge understand what we mean when we use the term I have just employed. 
Not only is this argument of ours largely ignored by scientific men, but I 
am sorry to say that several persons whom I very highly esteem have to a 
great extent given up the argument from design, — a circumstance which 
always excites in my own mind unspeakable astonishment. What we 
want is to have the whole force of this argument stated in exceedingly 
simple language : and although I regard Janet’s as a most valuable work, 
I think, at the same time, that it is one of those books which we find 
appealing solely to what I may term the aristocracy of intellect. What we 
want is a work addressed to the democracy of intellect. As it is, people 
generally are not able to appreciate the arguments we employ, and this is 
what has caused a large amount of unbelief. Therefore, the remedy we 
require is to have our arguments stated in plain English, so that they 
may be on a level with the ordinary intelligence of the million, instead 
of being confined to the understanding of what I call the intellectual 
aristocracy. It is very difficult. to commend such works as we have upon this 
subject to an ordinary man who is busied with the affairs of life, because, 
the great mass of the existing books treat the question from an elevated 
point of view and not from such a standpoint as is comprehensible to the 
masses. There is in this paper one expression, and although I quite agree 
with it, yet I should like to see it somewhat qualified ; it is the statement 
in which the author asserts that the argument from design amounts only to 
probability. I quite admit that it is an argument founded on proba- 
bility ; but I think that by adopting these words w 7 e may be greatly mislead- 
ing the ordinary class of readers. Of course, as a matter of fact, there are 
only two things which are capable of strict demonstration, namely, the 
truths which relate to space and number. 1 he term “ demonstration ” is 
also extensively used in modern scientific works to denote a truth capable of 
distinct and positive verification. Now, let us observe the real position of 
the question in relation to the argument from adaptation. I do not think 
it at all yields in force to the strongest demonstration in Euclid. I will 
not take the argument derived from the human eye, strong as it is, but 
will refer to the faculty of hearing. Let us see what are the correlations 
therein involved. First of all we have a wondrous musical instrument — the 
human mouth, the palate, and the whole of the interior structure, consti- 
tuting a musical instrument of surpassing completeness and complexity, 
