s a given end. But we do not
find this. What we see is a multitude of forces at work, the action of
each of which often results in the negation of the other. Put on one
side the larger, but not the least pregnant fact that animal life is
only maintained in the face of numerous agencies, inorganic and organic,
that are apparently bent upon its destruction; put on one side also the
fact that multitudes of parasites--as much the result of design as any
other form of life--are constantly preying upon and destroying forms of
life higher than themselves, and there still remain myriads of facts
altogether inconsistent and completely irreconcilable with the
hypothesis of a creative intelligence shaping the course of affairs to a
given end. To take only one illustration of this. What is to be said of
the myriads of animals that are born into the world only to perish
before reaching an age at which they can play their part in the
perpetuation of the species? Are we to believe that the same deity who
fashioned these forms of life created at the same time a number of
forces that were certain to destroy them? Clearly we are bound to
assume, either that this hypothetical Being pursues a number of mutually
destructive plans, or that there are a number of designers at work and
at war with each other, or that none at all exist.

If we are to judge nature from the standpoint of human intelligence,
then we must logically decide that it is full of waste, full of
bungling, full of plans that come to nothing, of ends that are never
realised, of pain and misery that might have been avoided by the
exercise of almost ordinary intelligence. There are few animals
concerning which a competent anatomist or physiologist could not suggest
some improvement in their construction by which their functions might be
more efficiently performed. Nor does it seem quite impossible to have
so adjusted natural forces that the development of life might have been
accomplished without the present enormous waste of material. It is
almost stupid to ask, as did the late Dr. Martineau, what right have we
to judge the world from "a purely humanistic point of view." The whole
argument from design is based upon a humanistic point of view. The
Atheist is only calling the attention of the theist to the consequences
of his own argument.

I leave for a later chapter, the moral aspect of the design argument. I
am at present concerned with its purely logical presentation. And