278 
Mr. Henslow. — I do not believe in Darwin’s theory ; and I have 
endeavoured to refute t by showing its utter impossibility. 
Mr. Reddie. — I cannot help there being inconsistencies in the paper. I 
can but take the sentence as it is, and there can be no doubt about it at all, 
if the “ it ” applies to the eye or the hand 
Mr. Henslow. — In another place I have especially guarded myself 
against that. 
Mr. Reddie. — Still I have nothing to do with the paper being inconsistent 
with itself 
Mr. Henslow. — But that is not inconsistent. 
Mr. Reddie. — Excuse me, but does the u it ” refer to the eye or the 
hand ? 
Mr. Henslow.— Yes. 
Mr. Reddie. — Then we are just where we were before. I say our Chair- 
man has refuted the evolution theory according to Mr. Darwin’s idea. If 
Mr. Henslow has a new way of evolving an eye by accident, it would be 
interesting to know what it is 
Mr. Henslow. — Look at the end. It does not imply that. 
Mr. Reddie. — Does it not imply “ evolved ” ? 
Mr. Henslow. — “ Evolved ” does not necessarily imply by accident. 
Mr. Reddie. — Well, if this is a new Darwinian theory, still the logic is 
peculiar. The author says, “ But as God’s ways are not our ways, so I 
believe it to have been evolved, and not created.” That is a form of logic which 
surprises me. Man cannot create anything. And if we say God does not 
create, that is making His ways like our ways ! I do not know whether Mr. 
Henslow is an Oxford or a Cambridge man ; but Dr. Thornton told us some 
time ago that there is no such thing as logic at Oxford, and certainly this is 
most extraordinary logic. Then there is one passage which Mr. Row 
commented on, and agreed with, but which I cannot agree with, — namely, 
that there is no such thing in this world as absolute perfection. Hot that I 
deny that there are many things which are imperfect ; yet Mr. Row did not 
give us any instances. He spoke about his finger 
Mr. Row. — I could give you hundreds in a moment if you liked. 
Mr. Reddie. — We may cut our fingers, or a man may have a bad con- 
stitution and his fingers may be imperfect, but that is merely exceptional, 
and there are certainly many things which do not come into the category of 
imperfect. I do not know whether Mr. Henslow is prepared to admit 
that crystals are perfect, yet he tells us that we have no perfection in nature. 
I do not know whether he thinks pure water and air are perfect or imperfect ; 
or whether he can say why, if he thinks them not perfect. I must confess 
that the more I look at nature the more perfect I find it. We are very 
ignorant, and on that account we might well say that “ God’s ways are not 
our ways,” tho.ugh we are not so ignorant as to be justified in quoting 
such texts mal a propos. Then with reference to anthropomorphism, — I 
shall speak with some hesitation about that, as I think it should be brought 
forward in a distinct paper, and treated in a careful manner. We had this 
