124 
proof of this so-called Biblical hypothesis, whether the Bible really does 
teach what is alleged concerning the origin of species, — that I must pass. 
One word, however, as to the argument of design. Supposing Darwin’s 
hypothesis true, what does it amount to theologically ? It amounts to this : 
that God, having respect to the well-being of His creatures, has impressed a 
law upon their- existence, that they shall always remain marvellously well 
adapted to the circumstances in which they are placed. Darwin says 
repeatedly that the end which is attained by natural selection is, that every 
creature in existence, plant or animal, shall always have by variation and 
competition a nature well adapted to the circumstances in which it is placed, 
because the best adapted will invariably be those which are preserved. It 
seems, therefore, to me, that it matters very little — as far as design is con- 
cerned — whether these adaptations were designed separately by God for each 
individual, or whether He so ordered the laws which govern life that each 
individual should perpetually become thus adapted. Rather does it seem to 
be more marvellous, more God-like, to implant one principle capable of making 
all individuals for all ages admirably adapted to the places in which they live 
than it is separately to design and fashion each. Take for illustration, an 
automaton draught-player whose hands are pulled by wires. For every move 
the automaton makes, a wire has to be pulled on purpose to make him take 
that move. Babbage thought he could make an automaton after a wiser 
fashion than that, and he made one that should choose its own moves, so that 
whatever move its antagonist made, the automaton immediately, and as it 
were of itself, took the right move in answer ; — surely a far greater display 
of skill and design, a far higher proof of genius. So, too, it seems to me 
it is a greater and more marvellous thing, if God fitted all creatures to the 
place in which they live by means of a law impressed on a few original 
beings, than if He separately designed each one — 
The Chairman. — That is not the view taken in Darwin’s works ; it is the 
view in the Vestiges of Creation, which Darwin ignores. I said design was to 
be sought for throughout creation. Darwin ignores design ; and the passages 
were to show, both with regard to the formation of the eye and the instinct of 
the bee, it was an ignoring of the existence of design ; and no fair interpreta- 
tion can be put on the words of- Darwin which does not include that idea, 
and this idea must be adopted by those who would quote Darwin as proof of 
the existence — of the self-existing, self-evolving powers of nature. 
Mr. Warington. — These passages never gave me the idea which Mr. 
Mitchell says they give him, and there are others also to whom they have never 
given such an idea. The extreme lateness of the hour renders it impossible 
for me to go as I should wish into the details of the argument about the eye 
and the bee’s cell. I do not for an instant deny the wonder involved in how 
these things came to be, but I confess I do not see how you make it one whit 
more incredible if you suppose the bee to have acquired its instinct rather 
than had it innate. That such an insect should make such cells is a marvel 
in itself, but I do not see how it is a greater marvel to suppose it gradually 
acquired than to suppose it created ; but I dare not attempt to enter into a 
