277 
which precisely corresponds with the very worst passage in Darwin’s book, 
where Mr. Henslow speaks of its assumptions perhaps being hereafter 
proved. The paper is full of hypothetical “ ifs ” ; “ if” this and “ if ” the 
other, and so on. But this is the passage to which I refer : — - 
This particular aspect of His will which is here represented by evolutive 
forces, appears to be internal to them, and may hereafter prove to be 
differentiations of perhaps one single force originally infused into matter, 
when ‘ the Spirit of Hod “ brooded ” upon the face of the waters.’ ” 
Now I do not believe that there is anything consistent with our knowledge 
of physics or of natural laws, and still less is there anything consistent with 
our knowledge even of history, which will warrant such a conclusion as that. 
Thinking as I do, it is only honest for me to say that. The sooner we meet 
such views as these straightforwardly the better. We should see what they 
plainly mean, and refute them if we can, and if not, admit that we cannot. 
In the same paragraph we have the words which Mr. Row has already com- 
mented on — that “ God’s ways are not our ways,” and I agree with what Mr. 
Row has said upon that point. In the first place, the phrase which occurs in 
one of the prophets — Isaiah, I think — has nothing to do with physics. We 
have no ways in physics : we cannot create anything. We have nothing to 
do with the air we breathe, or with the food that feeds us. We can cook 
and manipulate food, but as to its creation or its mode of existence we 
have nothing to do with that. I entirely object to texts of Scripture which 
have nothing to do with physics or science being brought forward and used 
in this way. I am sure Mr. Henslow will let me say this without feeling any 
offence, because this is an important matter, and in this Society especially 
there is some difficulty in knowing well how to draw a safe line. We are 
most anxious not to go unnecessarily into the exegesis of Scripture, and most 
anxious to test scientific truths scientifically, as in any other scientific 
or philosophical society that studies physical science ; and I object to having 
the Scriptures brought forward in this way. Every logician or man of 
common sense knows that a text applying to one particular class of things 
should not be drawn in, as it were by a side wind, and made to apply 
to totally different things. This, however, occurs more than once in the 
paper. In one part there is this most extraordinarily illogical sentence : — 
“ Instead, however, of selecting some particular example, as the eye or 
hand, and saying such exquisite mechanism is a very witness in itself of 
being a direct emanation from the Creator, I would say it evidences at least 
what we call design ; but as God’s ways are not our ways, so I believe it to 
have been evolved, and not created.” 
An eye evolved and not created ! That is simply Darwinism, and the 
reverse of design. Our Chairman has already refuted, in this very Society, 
the irrational notion that an eye could be evolved in the way Darwin 
puts forward ; and, I regret to add, in the way tacitly put forward in 
this paper 
