204 
terms are in the final conclusion as in the premises. We cannot, therefore, 
use the process we call demonstration, as in mathematics. Still I quite un- 
derstand there are equal certainties, quite as certain as mathematical demon- 
strations. I will take an example. Suppose I had four pennies, and I threw 
them up, and when they all fell they showed “ heads,” I should think that 
very extraordinary, and if I did that twenty or a hundred times, and with the 
same result, it would be irresistible to my own mind that some unfair play had 
been used. That would be self-evident, though I candidly admit that it would 
not be demonstrative. It is also utterly impossible to give a definition in 
a mathematical sense of what ought is, yet we have as clear an idea of what it 
is as anything in mathematics. The argument is brought into narrow limits 
as to the attributes of God. I have engaged considerably in controversial 
works, and I do not use hard language ; the Westminster Review has stated 
that I have abstained from any species of it ; still I cannot altogether find 
fault, as Mr. Holyoake has done. A few weeks ago I went into one of 
the rooms at the British Museum, and I saw the skeleton of an enormously 
large serpent. I contemplated it ; I looked at the backbone, the wonderful 
arrangement of sixty or seventy vertebrae, and I could not help feeling that 
I had before me one of the strongest evidences of design. I saw adaptation, 
and felt the inevitable result that must follow from such an evidence oi 
adaptation. It never originated of itself ; it proved design, it had combina- 
tion, it showed a scheme, it showed wisdom ; it is no use to invoke infinity 
of time and get rid of the question in that way. I am quite aware of what is 
common among writers of great name; when they meet with marks of 
design and skill, they say they were caused by evolution by the aid of infinity 
of time. That is no answer to what we instinctively perceive as adaptation ; 
and where there is this adaptation, I am entitled to infer a designing mind. 
By adaptation I mean skill and everything of that kind. Unless we are 
clear upon these points, we have misunderstandings ; and there is some such 
confusion in using the term “ final cause.” Some of Mr. Holyoake’s remarks 
arose from an insufficient appreciation of several of Dr. M‘Cann’s definitions. 
The want of correct definitions renders us incapable of mutually understanding 
one another. When I use this word “ design,” or “ adaptation,” I include 
every kind or species of skill, and when I saw and contemplated this serpent, 
there was an irresistible effect wrought upon my reason, and I believe the text 
almost consciously passed through my mind, “ The fool hath said m his heart 
there is no God.” I am not quite sure that the words did not escape my lips. 
The Chairman.— That passage has been already referred to, and I thought 
of saying a word about it, but I observed Mr. Holyoake was impatient. In the 
original, “ fool ” is not used as an expression of contempt, as in our ordinary 
usage ; — it merely means the unwise. 
Dr M‘Cann. — I was going to refer to that. 
Mr Row. — I was aware of that. Well, this serpent showed an immense, 
a wonderful adaptation of one part to another. I am not going to enter into 
metaphysics and show what are the laws by which we perceive adaptation 
it is a simple fact that mankind perceive it There is often a great dea o 
