matter of natural Theology; and I believe that here, as elsewhere,
Scripture and Science will be ultimately found to coincide.

But here we have to face an objection which you will often hear now from
scientific men, and still oftener from non-scientific men; who will
say--It matters not to us whether Scripture contradicts or does not
contradict a scientific natural Theology; for we hold such a science to
be impossible and naught. The old Jews put a God into nature; and
therefore of course they could see, as you see, what they had already put
there. But we see no God in nature. We do not deny the existence of a
God. We merely say that scientific research does not reveal Him to us.
We see no marks of design in physical phenomena. What used to be
considered as marks of design can be better explained by considering them
as the results of evolution according to necessary laws; and you and
Scripture make a mere assumption when you ascribe them to the operation
of a mind like the human mind.

Now on this point I believe we may answer fearlessly--If you cannot see
it, we cannot help you. If the heavens do not declare to you the glory
of God, nor the firmament show you His handy-work, then our poor
arguments will not show them. "The eye can only see that which it brings
with it the power of seeing." We can only reassert that we see design
everywhere; and that the vast majority of the human race in every age and
clime has seen it. Analogy from experience, sound induction--as we
hold--from the works not only of men but of animals, has made it an all
but self-evident truth to us, that wherever there is arrangement, there
must be an arranger; wherever there is adaptation of means to an end,
there must be an adapter; wherever an organization, there must be an
organizer. The existence of a designing God is no more demonstrable from
nature than the existence of other human beings independent of ourselves;