216 
need only remember that the title of his book is “The Origin of Species 
by means of Natural Selection ; and how this is understood by Haeckel 
and his admirers we very clearly see. They hail the Darwinian theory with 
rapture, because, in their opinion, it takes the place of a Creator. It is this 
principle that they have trumpeted to the world over and over again as a key 
to the adaptations of the organic world, and as doing away with the necessity 
for any Mind in Nature. Last year the views entertained by Haeckel were 
clearly expressed in an address reported in Nature , which, I dare say, many 
now present have read. If I may be allowed to express an opinion of my 
own, I would venture to say a few words with reference to plants, as I 
have studied them more than animals. Among the plants I have specially 
studied the Algse, and I find in them features that cannot be accounted 
for by the theory of Natural Selection. According to this doctrine no animal 
or plant possesses any useful quality which it has not acquired through that 
process. Therefore, conversely, you have to show that all the distinct 
properties it now possesses are of use to it, for, if they are not of use, the 
question arises, How could it have obtained those properties by Natural 
Selection ? Let us take the diatoms among Algae. It is difficult to see how 
their sculptured valves can be accounted for by Natural Selection. How are 
all the beautiful patterns, the little wheeled windows, and the delicate lines 
we find in them to be traced to this origin ; because, one necessarily asks, 
of what advantage can they be to the plant ? How is the plant benefited by 
them ? and if it be not benefited, how can it have acquired them by Natural 
Selection ? The same remark may be applied to the beautiful shades of red 
that are seen in the Red Sea- weeds — one of the most splendid series of red 
and crimson hues to be found in nature. According to theory these brilliant 
colours must have been obtained because they were needed by the plant ; 
but I have not yet heard that any use has been suggested for them. I 
should be glad to hear Professor Stokes say something about Natural Selec- 
tion, and tell us whether he thinks it adequate to the production of the 
many varied forms of life by which we are surrounded. (Applause.) 
An Associate. — I should like to ask one question of Professor Stokes, 
and his answer will be for my own benefit in my work. In answer to those 
who are opposed to us on the great question of a belief in God as evidenced 
in Creation, I have been in the habit of arguing thus — and I should like to 
be put right if I am in the wrong, so that I may not use the same argument 
again : — “ You say that the various adaptations of structure we find in 
animals and plants as affecting their habits and mode of obtaining their 
food, are the result of some force within themselves which you call natural 
selection.” Am I right in saying that this natural selection is equal to the 
power of thought 1 If, for example, the marvellous form and action of the 
pitcher-plant, so well described the other night by a member on my right 
(Mr. W. P. James) ; or the bill of the snipe, with the peculiar muscle at 
the end by which it is opened, and the nerve by which it feels, are the result 
of this natural selection, am I correct in saying that what you term natural 
selection is equal to the exercise of mind, and that, therefore, the pitcher- 
