123 
into existence. The objection of Dr. Gladstone, that every variation to be 
preserved must be, according to the theory, an improvement, which in many 
cases of intermediate stages of development presents a grave difficulty, I had 
meant to deal with at length, but time forbids. I am well aware that there 
is a difficulty here— one of the greatest, indeed, which the theory involves. 
(Hear, hear.) I think, however, there are fair reasons which can be brought 
forward to show that the difficulty is not so great as may seem at first sight ; 
but it is impossible now to go into this at length. Then there is the objection 
of Mr. Ince as to Noah’s ark being too big for a few species. That supposes 
that the variations have all taken place since the days of Noah, which 
Darwin certainly does not at all suppose, but, on the contrary, asks for 
millions of years. Of course if you can prove that all the races of animals 
now living came into existence within a short period of the flood, you have a 
strong objection against Darwin’s theory — the strongest conceivable ; but for 
myself I do not think that ever will or can be proved. Then as to the 
presumption of limiting God to the creation of a few species instead of many, 
I confess I cannot see it. In the same way I might say it is presumption to 
say God made only Adam, and did not create every man. You may as well 
say, when I assert that every man now living is a bom man, and not created } 
that I am limiting the power of God — 
Mr. Reddie. — We do not consider it presumption to believe that God 
created only Adam, because we believe this to be revealed to us. (Hear, 
hear.) 
Mr. Warington. — I simply say that the same line of reasoning which 
would make it presumption to limit creation to a few instead of many species 
would, applied to a strictly analogous case, make it presumption to suppose 
God had not created all men as well as Adam. As to Mr. Mitchell, his 
opening remarks I am compelled to pass over this evening, and proceed at 
once to that other hypothesis which we are told does account for all the facts. 
Undoubtedly it does so; but how? Not by hypothesis at all. Regarded 
as a matter of science, it says simply we know nothing about it. It gives no 
scientific or natural cause for the existence of living beings at all ; it merely 
says we owe our origin to God, and do not, in fact, know anything about how 
we came into existence — 
The Chairman. — I think you are putting this in an unfair form. 
Mr. Warington. — We are obliged to say, when asked how this came 
about, that we believe it came about in some way from God. Now we are 
brought, sooner or later, to this point in every science — a point beyond which 
our investigations cannot go, and where we must be content to refer the matter 
simply to God’s immediate action. My position, then, is this : it does not 
matter in the least, theologically, where that point lies, near or far away. 
God’s ultimate relation to all things is as true if it be placed at a period 
countless millions of ages ago, as if it be placed but at yesterday. I object, 
therefore, to any comparison between these two hypotheses, in the favour, 
theologically, of the one rather than the other, because the one takes us a little 
quicker to God’s immediate action than the other. Then as concerns the 
