283 
the same view of the doctrine of evolution which created such a sensation in 
this country when that famous book came out, The Vestiges of Creation. So far 
as I can understand all the arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have been simply 
an endeavour to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the 
Deity. His whole endeavour has been to push the Creator farther and 
farther back out of view. The most laborious part of Darwin’s attempt at 
reasoning — for it is not true reasoning — the most laborious part of his logic 
and reasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the atheistical 
authors have endeavoured to do it, the idea of design. Now, setting revela- 
tion aside, the manner in which the unknown author of The Vestiges of 
Creation treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that the doctrine of evolu- 
tion was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor did it deny the existence of 
design. So far as I could understand and make out, having carefully read 
the book at the time it came out and afterwards, and having carefully 
analyzed and compared it and Mr. Darwin’s book with each other, so far as I 
could understand it, the doctrine of the author of The Vestiges of Creation 
was simply, that God created all things, and that when He created matter 
he impressed on it certain laws ; that matter, being evolved according to those 
laws, should produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another 
and to the world ; and that every successive development which should be 
produced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the 
Deity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution of an eye from a more simple 
organ, was that the ultimate eye — man’s eye, for instance — was to be a perfect 
optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the previous design 
by the Creator, that at a certain period it should appear in a body quite 
adapted for its purposes. There is one question — and not the only one, but 
we must consider it as an important question — whether you can maintain a 
doctrine of evolution which shall not be atheistical, and which shall admit 
the great argument of design. That is one thing ; but the next thing is, does 
such a doctrine as that accord either with revelation or with the facts of 
science ? I do not believe that it can be made to agree with what we believe 
to be the revealed word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least 
degree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science ; and by 
that I mean those proved facts, which we can believe in, and have believed 
in. In fact, I do not believe that it has passed through those three stages 
which Mr. Henslow mentions when he says : — 
“ That the doctrine has been suspected and ridiculed is no more than 
might be anticipated, for all startling and new theories pass through the 
three stages of ridicule, examination, and acceptance, if found reconcileable 
with truth ; and evolution is now being rapidly transferred from the second 
to the third stage.” 
There I join issue with Mr. Henslow, and say, that from a scientific point 
of view, I do not think the doctrine of evolution has gained anything like 
universal acceptance. I think that when you have read The Vestiges of 
Creation and Mr. Darwin’s books, and after you have examined the facts 
