78 
and subsistence.” Buchner more cautiously says : “ The 
fruitfulness of many animals is so great that, abandoned to 
themselves, they would in a few years fill up the seas and 
cover the earth.” (p. 98.) Before I pass on I must also notice 
that, according to Buchner, one of the most important facts 
against the theory that “ nature acts with conscious design, is 
the production of monstrosities.” (p. 98.) 
We hear a good deal of persons “ not understanding Dar- 
winism.” How admirably, on the other hand, do the Darwinians 
appear to understand what they oppose. According to Mr. 
Warington, “ especial design” means “ arbitrary plan;” 
according to Buchner, “ our argument from design” must imply 
that “ nature acts with conscious design,” as if “ nature ” were 
our Deity ! 
Before I proceed to consider what Mr. Warington calls the ade- 
quacy of Darwinism, I must notice the paradoxical consistency 
of the very name of the theory. Not long ago in this Institute, 
when discussing the subject of Miracles , we had a definition of 
nature put forward (and I think at least tacitly accepted by 
Mr. Warington in his argument), namely, that the word has 
only a meaning with reference to a settled course or order, or 
law, implying a lawgiver ; and then “ the uniformity of 
nature ” was constantly in Mr. Waring ton's mouth. Well, I 
think we would all admit — unless we had a foregone conclu- 
sion to colour our judgment — that the word selection implies 
choice and an intelligent selecter. But Mr. Darwin's theory 
is well named “ the law of natural selection ' natural being 
used in antithesis to what is according to.law or to uniformity, 
and selection as opposed to either choice or design. The 
whole thing means only “ law ” per accidens — that is, law- 
lessness ; and, instead of “ natural selection,” we really know 
it is a theoretical process of accidental existence and extinction ; 
a jostling scramble and struggle for life ; a sauve qui pent m 
creation ; with Providence, when not consistently set aside, 
exercising only the prerogative of the heathen fate, and ruling 
mercilessly Vce victis ! 
But still we are gravely asked, “Are the causes alleged 
sufficient to account for all the specific differences known to 
exist ?” We are very fairly told in advance, that it is very 
far from satisfying the hypothesis merely to admit that some 
races may have originated as Mr. Darwin thinks ; the propo- 
sition being “that all have.” But here Mr. Warington has 
betrayed himself, and his frank mode of putting it is apt. to 
betray us into a false and illogical position. Consistently in- 
consistent once more, the reasoning plays with words, like the 
demented Prince of Denmark “ all ” does not here mean all ; 
