103 
accounted for on one admission— that the whole is the work of one Author, 
built according, as it were, to one style : that it represents the unity of one 
mind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most perfect 
manner for the uses for which they were created. It would not be difficult 
to show that this hypothesis guided Cuvier in those investigations of 
comparative anatomy which led him, from one or two bones, to build up 
accurately a skeleton which he had never seen. It was a doctrine held by 
Hunter, the father of modem physiology, as it had been by his great prede- 
cessors in that branch of science. How did they attempt to discover the use of 
an organ ? Was it by tracing it through an infinite variety of chance changes ? 
No. ^They sought for and arrived at that knowledge by assuming this as an 
axiom— as a canon for the interpretation of the structure of the animate 
world— that every organ in every animate structure was adapted by Infinite 
Wisdom for its own particular use. It was by believing this— it was by a 
firm faith in this wisdom, in this adaptability of organs, in this perfection of 
their design— that all the greatest discoveries in physiology have been made. 
Whewell has boldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that 
all real advances in the science of physiology and comparative anatomy 
such as that made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood — 
have been made by those who not only believed in the existence of design 
everywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief to 
make their discoveries. On the other hand, what great discoveries, may we 
ask, have been made by those who deny design and believe only in the self- 
evolving powers of nature ? Is not our hypothesis, then, a good working 
hypothesis ? Are we called upon to reject it for another which has neither 
worked so as to produce an advance in our knowledge nor yet can be twisted 
to account for facts diametrically opposed to it ? But why should we put it 
so low as a hypothesis ? I believe it to be something much higher than a 
hypothesis. I believe it to be clearly and plainly revealed as a truth given by 
God to man in His own book. I believe with a great master in science, that 
the man who cannot perceive that such an organ as the human eye manifests 
such a perfection of design that it could only come from the mind of an 
infinite Creator, is a man possessed of an ill-regulated, ill-constituted mind ; 
that his mental vision is subject to a far greater defect than could be com- 
pared with that defect of vision called colour blindness. Let us further test 
the credibility of Darwinism on issues raised by Darwin himself — such, for 
instance, as the formation of the human eye on his hypothesis. “ If it 
could be demonstrated,” he says, “ that any complex organ existed which 
could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my 
theory would absolutely break down.” The whole tenor and spirit of all that 
Darwin writes on this subject may be thus paraphrased : — The argument from 
design is the greatest crux I have to get over ; I must evade it or deny it 
altogether — design can have no place in my system : admit it, and my 
hypothesis falls to the ground. He admits that if such a complex organ as 
the human eye could not be formed, as he says it has been, by the law of 
natural selection, his theory must absolutely break down. Besides the 
