Proposingnowtocriticisethecritics, sofarastoseewhattheirmostgeneralandcomprehensiveobjectionsamountto, wemustneedsbeginwiththeAmericanreviewers, andwiththeirargumentsadducedtoprovethataderivativehypothesisoughtnottobetrue, orisnotpossible, philosophical, ortheistic.
Itmustnotbeforgottenthatonformeroccasionsveryconfidentjudgmentshavebeenpronouncedbyverycompetentpersons, , NewtonandLeibnitz, bothprofoundlyreligiousaswellasphilosophical, oneproducedthetheoryofgravitation, —anaturalconsequenceofthetheoryofgravitationandofthesubsequentprogressofphysicalandastronomicaldiscovery—, andwherenotacceptedisnolongerobjectedto, sofarasweknow, onphilosophicalorreligiousgrounds.
ThegistofthephilosophicalobjectionsurgedbythetwoBostonreviewersagainstanhypothesisofthederivationofspecies—oratleastagainstDarwinsparticularhypothesis— is, thatitisincompatiblewiththeideaofanymanifestationofdesignintheuniverse,, andonethatdemandsveryseriousattention.
Theproposition, thatthingsandeventsinNaturewerenotdesignedtobeso, iflogicallycarriedout,, (whateverthatexpressionmeans), butasnotthemselvesspeciallyordained, orwho, inanotherconnection, believesingeneral, ; , todenythatanythingwasspeciallydesignedtobewhatitis, isoneproposition;whiletodenythattheDesignersupernaturallyorimmediatelymadeitso, isanother: thoughthereviewersappearnottorecognizethedistinction.
