MetaphysiciansmaydeclinetocallsuchabeingGod；butaproofofsuper-humanwisdomandpowermaybeenoughforpracticalpurposes。138*
Theproof，then，thatsuchabeingexists，mustbemadebyinduction；and，asMillexplains，bythefirstofthefamous’fourmethods，’namely，bythatofAgreement。139*Thisargument，thoughgenerallytheweakest，isinthiscase’strongofitskind。’Heillustratesitbythefamiliarcase。Theeyeisacomplexstructurewhich，asitbeganintime，musthavehadacauseorcauses。’Chance’iseliminatedbythenumberofinstances，andthereforetheremustbesomecausalconnectionbetweenthe’cause’whichbroughttheelementstogetherandthe’factofsight。’Mill，thatis，thinksitnecessarytoprovewhatsciencetakesforgranted。Nomanofsciencedisputesthatthereissomecauseofeyesandofeveryeye。Butherewehavethecurioustransitionintoanotherorderofthought，whichcorrespondstothepassagefromtheempiricaltothetranscendentalmeaning。Itisclearthatsolongasweareinthesphereofscience，theonly’cause’oftheexistenceofaneyeisthesumoftheprecedingorganicprocesses。Agivenanimalhaseyesbecausetheprocessesofreproductioninvolveresemblancetoitsparents。Ifwegobacktoeyelessancestors，wehavetheproblemhoweyesweredeveloped；butthepurelyscientificanswerwouldstillconsistinassigningthepreviousconditionsortheprecedentstageinthewholeprocessofnature。Howdowegetoutofthisseries？Theargument，accordingtoMill，wouldproceedbysayingthat，assightfollowstheeye，thecausemustbea’final’cause；or，inotherwords，correspondtoan’intelligentWill。’ButwhatistherelationofthisWilltotheadmittedseriesofevents？Causationalwayssendsmebackalonganindefinitelyproducibleseries。AmItointerpretthiscauseasan’alternative’towhatmaybecalledthenaturalcause；orascorrespondingtoageneralpower，whichismanifestedthroughthewholeseries？InthelattercasewemayconsidertheGodofnatureasan’immanent’power。Hisoperationismanifestinthegeneralwisdomofthewholesystem。Itisnotonlyconsistentwith，butimplies，thepersistenceofthe’lawsofnature，’andthereforetheevolutionofeyes，iftherewasaperiodbeforeeyesexisted。Ifthatviewbetenable，wemaysave’teleology’byapplyingittonatureasawhole，butthereisnointerventionintheactualseriesofnaturalevents。OntheviewwhichMillaccepts，wehaveanintervention，atsomeparticularpoint。Buthowisthistobeinferred，orwhatcanitmean？Ihavealreadynoticedthefamiliardifficultiesinspeakingof’PhilipBeauchamp。’Thephilosophicalobjectionisclear，140*andinscience’creation’canbeonlyaword；itintroducesanarbitraryandunmeaninginterruption，and，undertheformofexplaining，declaresexplanationtobeimpossible。
Infact，whensuchconceptionsarebroughtintotheargument，when’creation’isusedasanalternativehypothesistoapermanentorder，theansweroftheevolutionistisconclusive。
Here，accordingly，MillfindshimselfconfrontedbyDarwin。Headmitsthatthedoctrineofthe’survivalofthefittest’would’greatlyattenuate，’thoughitwouldbein’nowaywhateverinconsistentwithcreation。’141*Thismeans，apparently，thatDarwinismdoesnotprovethattherewasnota’creation’atsomeindefinitetime；thoughitdoesshowthatthereisnoneedforsupposingacreationsincetheexistingorderbegan。
IhavealreadynoticedMill’sviewofthis’remarkablespeculation。’Herehevirtuallyadmitsthathistheology，suchasitis，and，indeed，hiswholeconceptionofnature，isvirtuallyopposedtoevolution。Science，hesays，mosttruly，leadsustoregardnatureas’oneconnectedsystem，notawebofseparatethreadsinpassivejuxtapositionwithoneanother，butrather，likethehumanoranimalframe，’inperpetual’actionandreaction’；andthenaturalversionofthis，headds，istheism。