who spoke so wisely and so well about design would not for a moment
hear of descent with modification.

Each, moreover, had a strong case. Who could reflect upon
rudimentary organs, and grant Paley the kind of design that alone
would content him? And yet who could examine the foot or the eye,
and grant Mr. Darwin his denial of forethought and plan?

For that Mr. Darwin did deny skill and contrivance in connection
with the greatly preponderating part of organic developments cannot
be and is not now disputed. In the first chapter of "Evolution Old
and New" I brought forward passages to show how completely he and
his followers deny design, but will here quote one of the latest of
the many that have appeared to the same effect since "Evolution Old
and New" was published; it is by Mr. Romanes, and runs as follows:-

"It is the VERY ESSENCE of the Darwinian hypothesis that it only
seeks to explain the APPARENTLY purposive variations, or variations
of an adaptive kind." {17a}

The words "apparently purposive" show that those organs in animals
and plants which at first sight seem to have been designed with a
view to the work they have to do--that is to say, with a view to
future function--had not, according to Mr. Darwin, in reality any
connection with, or inception in, effort; effort involves purpose
and design; they had therefore no inception in design, however much
they might present the appearance of being designed; the appearance
was delusive; Mr. Romanes correctly declares it to be "the very
essence" of Mr. Darwin's system to attempt an explanation of these
seemingly purposive variations which shall be compatible with their