"The succession of species by continuously operating law, is not necessarily a 'blind operation.' Such law, however discerned in the properties and successions of natural objects, intimates, nevertheless, a preconceived progress.
Organisms may be evolved in orderly succession, stage after stage, towards a foreseen goal, and the broad features of the course may still show the unmistakable impress of Divine volition." Mr.Wallace[292] declares that the opponents of evolution present a less elevated view of the Almighty.

He says: "Why should we suppose the machine too complicated to have been designed by the Creator so complete that it would necessarily work out harmonious results?
The theory of 'continual interference' is a limitation of the Creator's power.

It assumes that He could not work by pure law in the organic, as He has done in the inorganic world." Thus, then, there is not only no necessary antagonism between the general theory of "evolution" and a Divine action, but the compatibility between the two is recognized by naturalists who cannot be suspected of any strong theological bias.
{275} The very same may be said as to the special Darwinian form of the theory of evolution.
It is true Mr.Darwin writes sometimes as if he thought that his theory militated against even _derivative creation_.[293] This, however, there is no doubt, was not really meant; and indeed, in the passage before quoted and criticised, the possibility of the Divine ordination of each variation is spoken of as a tenable view.

He says ("Origin of Species," p.

569), "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone;" and he speaks of life "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one," which is _more_ than the dogma of creation actually requires.