hemselves specially ordained, or who,
in another connection, believes in general, but not in particular
Providence. We could sadly puzzle him with questions; but in return he
might equally puzzle us. Then, to deny that anything was specially
designed to be what it is is one proposition; while to deny that the
Designer supernaturally or immediately made it so is another: though
the reviewers appear not to recognize the distinction.

Also, "scornfully to repudiate" or to "sneer at the idea of any
manifestation of design in the material universe"[2] is one thing;
while to consider, and perhaps to exaggerate, the difficulties which
attend the practical application of the doctrine of final causes to
certain instances is quite another thing: yet the Boston reviewers, we
regret to say, have not been duly regardful of the difference.
Whatever be thought of Darwin's doctrine, we are surprised that he
should be charged with scorning or sneering at the opinions of others,
upon such a subject. Perhaps Darwin's view is incompatible with final
causes;--we will consider that question presently;--but as to the
"Examiner's" charge, that he "sneers at the idea of any manifestation
of design in the material universe," though we are confident that no
misrepresentation was intended, we are equally confident that it is
not at all warranted by the two passages cited in support of it. Here
are the passages:--

"If green woodpeckers alone had existed, or we did not know that there
were many black and pied kinds, I dare say that we should have thought
that the green color was a beautiful adaptation to hide this
tree-frequenting bird from its enemies."

"If our reason leads us to admire with enthusiasm a multitude of
inimitable contrivances in Nature, this same reason tells us, though
we may easily err on both sides, that some contrivances are less
perfect. Can we consider the sting of the wasp or of the bee as
perfect, which, when used against many attacking animals, cannot be
withdrawn, owing to the backward serratures, and so inevitably causes
the death of the insect by tearing out its viscera?"

If the sneer here escapes ordinary vision in the detached extracts,
(one of them wanting the end of the sentence,) it is, if possible,
more imperceptible when read with the context. Moreover, this perusal
inclines us to think that the "Examiner" has misapprehended the
particular argument or object, as well as the spirit, of the author in
these pa