aken the place of God.

This, Gentlemen, is a philosophy, properly so called, which vainly
pretends to find a support in the observation of facts. Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire, the rival of Cuvier, set forth views analogous to those
which Mr. Darwin has lately reproduced. But in his replies to the
attacks which were made upon his system, he affirmed that his theory
offered "one of the most glorious manifestations of creative power, and
an additional motive for admiration, gratitude, and love."[126] Two
different interpretations may therefore be given to the system. I wish
to show you that these interpretations proceed in all cases from
considerations external to the system. The system in itself, as a theory
of natural history, could not in any way affect injuriously the great
interests of spiritual truth.

In order solidly to establish this assertion, I will suppose the
hypotheses of the most advanced disciples of Mr. Darwin to have been
verified by experimental science. I take for granted that it has been
proved that all plants and all animals have descended, by way of regular
generation, from living cellules originally similar; and that the
material particles of the globe, at a given moment, drew together to
form these cellules. And now where do we stand? Will God henceforward be
a superfluous hypothesis? Do the atheistical consequences which it is
desired to draw from this doctrine proceed logically from it? Most
certainly not!

I observe first of all that there exists a great question relative to
the beginning of things. Matter is perfected and organized in process of
time--but whence comes matter itself? Is it also formed little by little
in process of time? Does non-existence become existence little by
little? So it is said in the preface to the French translation of Mr.
Darwin's book. But this appertains to high metaphysics; and I pass on.

If time is the factor of all progress by a necessary law, this necessity
must be everywhere the same. Have the elements of matter all the same
age? If so, why have some followed the law of progress, and others not?
Why has this mud and this coal remained mud and coal, age after age,
while these other molecules have risen, in the hierarchy of the
universe, to the dignity of life? Why have these mollusks remained
mollusks throughout the succession of their generations, while others,
happily transformed, have gradually mounted the steps of the ladder up
to man? Whence comes this ar