195 
design of which I take to be, to prove that there is an intelligent Mind 
working in nature, and realizing itself in nature. I do not quite agree with 
one or two of the views expressed therein, especially the statement that a 
metaphysical foundation underlies science. It is difficult, if not impossible, 
to arrive at anything like certainty in metaphysical inquiries, for in the very 
outset we are confronted by the impossibility of proof ; how then can 
science be established on such a foundation of nescience as this ? I am surprised 
that this paper did not allude to such subjects as the being and existence 
of God, and to the Bible record. The author has referred to the subject of 
the creation, and the design of the Creator, who, as I conceive it, created all 
things for His own Glory rather than for the grandeur of man. 
Kev. G. Currey, D.D. (Master of the Charterhouse). — I can scarcely 
concur in the objection of the chairman as to the want of reference to the 
Bible record in the paper we have just heard. It appears to me quite clear 
that the design of the writer is, to show how we can arrive at a conclusion 
that there is an intelligent design in the works of creation simply by 
metaphysical reasoning. It would have been out of place in such an argument 
to introduce scriptural proofs, which of course rest on an entirely different 
basis. The purpose of the paper seems to me to be this — to set forth how 
we can, by a purely metaphysical reasoning, arrive at the conclusion that 
there is design in creation, and especially that form of design which is re- 
presented by the term final cause — namely, that this world and all that 
is in this world, came into being in consequence of, and guided by a purpose 
and a design which it was its end to accomplish : that seems to be the pro- 
position which the author wishes to maintain. In starting, it is important 
to bear in mind, that all reasoning on such subjects as this must depend 
upon the assumption of an analogy between the nature of man and the 
operations of nature around him. If we do not conceive that there is a 
resemblance or analogy between our own operations and the operations of 
nature around us, we are unable to reason at all. Our argument must 
section but two of the paper, I wish to mention a fact in relation 
to the argument which is sometimes put forward by a certain school with 
regard to organs and functions being created by the necessity for their exer- 
cise. Herr Biichner, I think, says that we have not legs for the purpose 
of walking with, but because we happen to have legs we walk ; that 
eyes w r ere not made for the purpose of seeing with, but because we happen 
to have eyes we see. The particular fact I wish to mention is one which is 
probably known to many. It has been asserted that the fishes found 
in the mammoth caves of Kentucky have not the faculty of sight, and have 
been born in perpetual darkness. A friend got some of these fishes 
and sent them home to Mr. Darwin, w T ho found that they had well-formed 
eyes. Mr. Darwin, when previously written to on the subject, would not 
believe that they had eyes or properly formed visual organs. It was well 
known that they were blind ; but, nevertheless, they were blind fishes with 
eyes. When the fishes were sent to Mr. Darwin lie could not refuse the 
evidence of his own senses ; though it appeared to be a part of the plan of 
nature which would not be altogether consistent with his own view of 
evolution.” 
