unable to understand how anything can possibly go
right unless he sees to it himself. Nature works
departmentally and by way of leaving details to subordinates.
But though those who see nature thus do indeed deny
design of the prescient-from-all-eternity order, they
in no way impugn a method which is far more in accord
with all that we commonly think of as design.
A design which is as incredible as that a ewe should
give birth to a lion becomes of a piece with all that
we observe most frequently if it be regarded rather
as an aggregation of many small steps than as a single
large one. This principle is very simple, but
it seems rather difficult to understand. It has
taken several generations before people would admit
it as regards organism even after it was pointed out
to them, and those who saw it as regards organism
still failed to understand it as regards design; an
inexorable “Thus far shalt thou go and no farther”
barred them from fruition of the harvest they should
have been the first to reap. The very men who
most insisted that specific difference was the accumulation
of differences so minute as to be often hardly, if
at all, perceptible, could not see that the striking
and baffling phenomena of design in connection with
organism admitted of exactly the same solution as
the riddle of organic development, and should be seen
not as a result reached per saltum, but as an accumulation
of small steps or leaps in a given direction.
It was as though those who had insisted on the derivation
of all forms of the steam-engine from the common
kettle, and who saw that this stands in much the same
relations to the engines, we will say, of the Great
Eastern steamship as the amoeba to man, were to declare
that the Great Eastern engines were not designed at
all, on the ground that no one in the early kettle
days had foreseen so great a future development, and
were unable to understand that a piecemeal solvitur
ambulando design is more omnipresent, all-seeing,
and all-searching, and hence more truly in the strictest
sense design, than any speculative leap of fancy,
however bold and even at times successful.
From Lamarck I went on to Buffon and Erasmus Darwin—better men both of them than Lamarck, and treated by him much as he has himself been treated by those who have come after him—and found that the system of these three writers, if considered rightly, and if the corollary that heredity is only a mode of memory were added, would get us out of our dilemma as regards descent and design, and enable us to keep both. We could do this by making the design manifested in organism more like the only design of which we know anything, and therefore the only design of which we ought to speak—I mean our own.