112 ON THE LATEST FORM OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEORY. 
Such speculations as these appear to be rather exercises of fancy than sober in- 
ferences of science. A mere hypothesis of indefinite Cumulative Variation, resting upon 
analogy, in the absence of all direct proof, must be allowed also to create its own 
evidence of the inconceivable lapse of time requisite for its development, instead of 
drawing that evidence from distinct and independent sources. 
Professor Powell, in his advocacy of the Development Theory, argues at length 
against the doctrine of Final Causes ; but there is only one sentence in Mr. Darwin's vol- 
ume from which we can infer the nature of his objections to the same doctrine. Speak- 
ing of the facts included under the general name of Morphology, he says, “ Nothing 
can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of 
the same class, by utility or the doctrine of Final Causes" Admitting for the moment 
the correctness of this assertion, what does it amount to? Surely it will not be main- 
tained, that because Final Causes cannot be discovered everywhere, therefore they do not 
exist anywhere. No one will contend, that because we cannot see the use of the rudi- 
mentary mamme in the male, therefore the corresponding organs in the female are not 
adapted to the suckling of her young. As well might it be argued that the rain does 
no good in moistening the parched earth, because other rain-drops are seemingly 
wasted by falling into the sea. To the reflecting theist, the general similarity of struc- 
ture declares the unity of the Creator, without contradicting the lessons taught by 
special adaptations respecting His benevolence and forethought. To borrow Mr. Dar- 
win's own example: — * What can be more curious," he asks, *than that the hand of 
a man formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of a horse, the paddle 
of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, 
and should include the same bones, in the same relative position?” (p. 377.) Of 
course, by *the same" pattern, * the same" bones, and * the same " relative position, 
Mr. Darwin means a similar pattern, similar bones, position, &c.; that is, that the 
pattern, bones, and position are alike in part, and different in part. Granted, then, 
that the doctrine of Final Causes will not explain the likeness; will that of Mor- 
phology explain the difference? The typical anterior limb is modified in many dif- - 
ferent ways, so as to become adapted to the wants of animals with different habits ; 
it becomes a hand for man, a shovel for a mole, a paddle for a porpoise, and a 
wing for a bat. The similarities in the pattern or groundwork are referred to one - 
principle in science, Morphology; the peculiarities in each special adaptation, to an- 
other principle, that of Final Causes. Both the like and the unlike are constituent parts 
of one structure; they are referred respectively to different, but not contradictory prin- 
ciples; and since neither of these principles is competent for the explanation of the 
