218 
T 
the truth. As science produces many of the advantages we enjoy, it also 
increases our knowledge of all things ; and so it may be with regard to the 
doctrine of evolution. I do not here allude to those extreme forms of 
evolution which would exclude the Creator. I cannot think of evolution 
without an Evolver ; I am unable to imagine a creation without a Creator ; 
and I have no conception of a law without a Lawgiver. (Hear, hear.) Nor 
have I read anything in the works or doctrine of Darwin implying that he 
entertained a contrary opinion. Who, I ask, are we, that we should dictate 
or attempt to limit the Almighty in His modes of creation ? I do not see 
that it is in any degree less wonderful that He should have been the author 
of a gradual process of development than that the results we see around us 
should have been produced immediately. Does not the process of evolution 
go on in each individual ? and may not the same thing be true of the race 
that is of the individual ? You have, therefore, no right to speak dogmati- 
cally or to condemn scientific men. Our duty is to be patient and to wait. 
If we only look for the truth earnestly, we are not likely to go wrong. I 
am sorry that there should be any apparent antagonism between science 
and religion. Natural theology is science, and science is natural theology. 
Who shall say that, as Galen of old, when he wrote his anatomical books, 
thought he was writing a hymn to the Creator, Darwin did not think so 
likewise ? I think it exceedingly probable that he did. (Applause.) I now 
call on Professor Stokes to reply. 
Professor Stokes. — I will only reply very briefly to some of the remarks 
that have been made this evening. A good many of those who have spoken 
have merely signified their general assent to what I have brought before 
the Institute in the paper I have read. I think that one of the arguments 
I used has been a little misunderstood. It is in that part of my paper in 
which I say — speaking of the possibility of particular instances of the multi- 
plicity of species having been due to some process of evolution— there is 
nothing atheistical in the supposition ; but it is a very different thing to 
assume, a priori, that such must have been the case. I have no objection 
to the supposition that condition A may have arisen out of the preceding 
condition B, and that condition B may have arisen out of condition C, and 
so on. What I do object to is the assumption which changes the w'ord 
“ may” into the word “ must.” (Hear, hear.) I believe, as I have already 
expressed myself, the probability is, that this evolution of effect from cause 
extends far — very far — beyond anything we are able to trace. But still, at 
every step, when we can no longer trace the process of descent, we ought to 
put in the word “ may,” and have no right to insert the word “ must.” 
With respect to Dr. Rae’s remarks, I would remind you that I have said 
nothing about the geographical distribution of species. It is a subject on 
which I have no right to speak, as it belongs to an important branch of 
biology. Dr. Rae’s remarks have been very interesting ; but I did not 
venture upon the subject with which he dealt. When I spoke of four or 
five different centres, what I meant was, not geographical centres, but 
particular conditions of animal life which Darwin failed to connect one with 
