Abstract
The aim of the paper which I had the honour to submit to the Victoria Institute last year was to show that claims made in favour of natural Selection as a substitute for the Theory of Design, both in biological research and inference, are not tenable. The rival theories of Special Creations and Organic Evolution were noticed. As, however, the subject was not the origin of species by the explanation of the structural and physiological fitness characteristic of these, no attempt was made to deal with the merits of either as a theory of origin. The discussion was throughout from the point of view of theism. In the able and kindly criticism of my paper, some things were said which suggested that several of my remarks would have had more weight had the feeling underlying them been more clearly indicated. The feeling, namely, that however important, in the present condition of scientific thought, the vindication of the warrant for the method of the purely theistic argument may be, it does not go far enough to meet the exigencies of the times, while logically it ought. That theism alone is of highest value, and best fulfils its end, which is in conscious sympathy with Christianity, and, indeed, passes into it, by what we may call links of natural gradation. The seen and the unseen are not antagonistic spheres, they are only different aspects of the one sphere of possible knowledge. My former communication was strictly limited to a purely scientific examination of the data appealed to on behalf of natural selection as a substitute for the well-known theistic argument. No reference was made tot he Bible, but it was, and always will be, impossible for any who have accepted it as The Word of God to forget that, but for its presence and influence, there could have been no discussion on the questions at issue. Why should not this be openly and freely acknowledged by Christian apologists, and the bias implied in this fairly estimated, seeing that the bias is not all on one side, and especially, that the whole subject admits of full discussion as a scientific subject and not a theological doctrine? This is the point of view of the present contribution.