280 
“ Is there no design in the senses by which man can receive external im- 
pressions ? Is there no design in the mutual adaptations, correspondence, and 
connection between all his organs ? If all these things, and ten thousand 
others, are due to chance ; if the structure of the eye of a vertebrate has 
been developed from that of a radiate by repeated chance improvements 
which have been beneficial to the creature, in conjunction with other changes, 
in accordance with the principle of the ‘correlation of growth,’ which 
principle must be based upon chance as well, if not to be allowed as 
designed ; then, as every mathematician knows, the chances would be 
infinity to one that such variations would arise, and that, having arisen, the 
different organs would vary together ; so that by one long series of chance 
variations the eye of a man should have been produced from the ocellus of 
an ophiura.” 
That is, in my opinion, downright nonsense, utterly unproved and contrary 
to all we know, and I cannot admit any such arguments based on a mere 
series of “ifs” 
Mr. Henslow. — You misunderstand me. I am simply showing that even 
if we concede to the extreme supporters of Darwin’s theory everything 
they ask for, my view is still right. 
Mr. Redd ie. — But I object to conceding such points, and assuming the 
possibility of these things, when there is not a shadow of proof in their 
favour 
The Chairman. — It is rather an obscure passage, but I do not take Mr. 
Henslow to mean what you do, but the very contrary, that there is ample 
proof that such an argument could not have been mathematically sustained 
even by any of these “ ifs.” 
Mr. Reddie. — I do not ask for mathematical proofs, but I do say that this is 
an unfair and unsafe mode of bringing these things forward, especially when 
Mr. Henslow ends the passage by saying “ That the one has probably been 
developed from the other might be readily admitted.” I say that in this 
Society, until there is some reason for such admissions, these things should 
not be brought forward in this way. . If there is any proof in their favour, 
let them be received by all means, but if not, let there be no such concessions 
made. With regard to variations, I can only say that that part of the theory 
which is true is not new, and it is only when it goes beyond the bounds of 
science that the theory has been controverted and shown to be false. As to 
a development from monkeys into men, there is not a shadow of proof for 
believing either in its probability or possibility. It is the most absurd thing 
that was ever put forward in the name of science, and matches the most 
foolish notions of the darkest ages or the least enlightened of mankind. 
Rev. J. H. Titcomb. — After the somewhat severe manner in which Mr. 
Reddie has dealt with this paper, and expressed his opinions on points with 
regard to which he differs from the author, it may be interesting to turn to 
parts of the paper where we have a greater agreement with Mr. Henslow. 
Whatever our views of evolution and creation may be, I think we shall have 
but one opinion as to the great value which this paper possesses in the vindi- 
cation of the possibility of design on the part of God running parallel with 
