On Thursday evening last a public lecture was delivered in connection with the xnbove Astociation, in the Temperance Hall, by the Rev. A. Williamson, LI D.; Sub Vou. Acsbalesiee Mirus, Pessldent of ject, The Argument from Design." The
Agsociation, occupied the chair, and while introducing the lecturer, gave a. short account as to how the Society hed been formed, and the work it is nieant to carry on. At the outeat of the lecture, the lecturer defined The" Argument from Design" as follows:—Thnt if we meet with auything adapted for a particular purpose, or Lo or more things situated so as to effect a in end, we conclude that there was an ind ut work designing and determining the whole. By way of illustration the lecturer referred to a metal type, ape and the letter on it proving ignor; a thousand different types, when ther in order or disorder, multiply the proof " thousand-fold; type set up to throw off a seiitonce increases the arxtndetinitely; while a case of type riged to throw off a book makes the evidence of antecedent thought, purpose, and will, and power, almost infinite in its force. We cannot gaitisuy this evidence we cannot believe the types themselves set up and printed the buck, But this in the character of the evidence supplied by Nature in favour of the existence and attributes of God. Firat of all, the atoms, molecules, are manufactured articles, posed of shape, weight, definite propor-Secondly, the factured articles are combined to form inorganic and organic substances—minerale, plants, and animals of manifest utility and uudeniable purposes. Thirdly, these inorganic ud organic substances are arranged and combined in all variety of number and shape, 20 as to form a world of inexhaustible diversity and wondrous beauty.
predicate a personal God. Th here illustrated the subject at cou-siderable length by reference to the wonderful design apparent in the animal creation, He then turned to the theories urged argument, First, the objector aald, left out of consideration all the forces of nature: matter force was all that was necessary. He remarked that force was power at the beginning, A-watd' matter and forces. Power wound it unp.. The solar system—the whole universe—was matter and force, But this force was power at the beginning, avd power wound it up, and, just as the watch, it had a definite time, and was running down; so scien-fate wil knew the created system was also running down, and, li language of Scripture, the heaven and earth will pass away." He then remarked that this will-power was directed by the mind tu accomplish certain ends.
The universe was matter and force, but was power at the beginning. 'This' was illustrated by reference to the mnilldam. The water-wheel and machinery showed matter and force; but will-power raised the sluice, rifle me; but will-power aimed the piece, at the exact time, ang killed the bird. So at the beginning of all things there was an infinite mind, a mind of infinite resources possessed of will-power which created the world by bringing in definite manner at definite times in definite proportion at the exact moment to carry out his purposes Again, objectors say argument only proves a gigantic man, a craftsman with power far beyond our present calculation and they taunted those who upheld the argument with anthropomorphism. But he showed the argument was, though aualogical, safe and just. - Mon are thinking, planning personalities, possessed of will and powers, and in the virtue of this are capable of accomplishing certain ends.
When therefore we see similar ends in the works of nature around us we believe this implies shnilar capacities, and as the intelligence and power exhibited in nature are incalculably beyond. us, we ascribe infinity to.that poner, But although log cally there is a wide step between proving nice of an intelligent creator and the infinity and self-existence of that veal for, yet are we led to believe that the xttributes of the creator must be as vast and. illimitable os the universe, and therefore virtually infinite, Again, objectors say there is blundering in creation, and the argument proves wisdom. Here the lecturer referred to a writer who spoke of the human eye as so imperfect that an optician who should produce such-an instrument would be bouted from the trade as an ignoramus, But Helmholtz, the highest authority in optics, explicitly declared that while there might by said to be defects in the eye, owing to the animal tissue out of which it was made, yet these were compensated for; and he explicitly firms, "the adaptation of the eye to ite function la most complete and ho further rema: its imperfeotion is practical, not absolute." Sic David Brewster affirmed the sine thing, saying, "the human eye as the organ of vision is perfect." 'I'he lecturer also remarked as to its wonderful power, inasmuch as at one moment it was a telescope, another a stereoscope, again " microscope, Another objector suid there was waste in creation, which disprove design, The lecturer said one of the axioms of scientific nen was that there was n He next referred to the objections drawn from undeveloped organs; saying: it, was very extraordinary to find aciouti taking objection to this, inasmuch as these undeveloped organs were the only means by-which we could trace the rela other creatures, and also in certain cases conduced to the symmetry of the animal and he looked upon this argument as 6f more fore oscar on the body. The last objection the lecturer referred to was with regard to the carnivora, and he said that certain scientists maintained that because there were instruments in these caruivora fitted to wound, poison, and kill, therefore the Creator could not have been perfectly benevolent. This, the lecturer remarked, touched upon the great mystery But the objec was puerile; and' these things in creation no more militated against the argu of beneficent designer the "rod correction" in x family disproved the benevolence of the father. The lecturer concluded this portion of the subject by arguing that not only was there design in creation, but that everything was: ur-ranged for the good of man, the elevation of imi the progress of man; and whatever man needed in his progress upwards he found supplied in creation. Not only did they find materials for food, and clothing, and building, and agricultural iruunsute, but they found stores of coal for steam; metals in which steam could be generated and compressed; acids to goner-ato electricity, wires to carry along that electricity, and when the need for insulators vulcanized india-rubber was there the want, and thus our cable were rendered possible. In the beginning of the arts they found mercury to determine the temperature, platinum for high lieuts, glass for telescopes and microscopes, and in fact as men progressed they discovered material provided from the begining to help them to go ahead, id who could say that this could be limited); and thia proved a prescient designer from the first, The lecturer turned to the other side of the argument, evolution; detining it; and pointing out the water impossibility of evolution accounting for what we find in creation, Among other things he pointed out liv in wature—iu the human body fur
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.