EDITOR'S TABLE. 



8 45 



his philosophical allies shed any 

 light. An argument is attempted to 

 be founded on the fact that the lan- 

 guage used by Herbert Spencer him- 

 self in dealing with biological ques- 

 tions shows teleological implica- 

 tions; but there is nothing in this. 

 Mr. Spencer is not a teleologist; and 

 if he were, we should have to con- 

 sider his reasons for being one, and 

 not stop short with the fact that he 

 was one. Science does not permit 

 such an abuse to be made of authori- 

 ty. The reason why Mr. Spencer's 

 language and all language has a te- 

 leological character is that man has 

 been obliged to frame language on 

 lines prescribed by his own mental 

 activity. Man is essentially a de- 

 signer, and he reads design more or 

 less into everything that he sees. 



There is one passage in our con- 

 tributor's article which seems to 

 evince that his conversion to the 

 doctrine of evolution is not very 

 complete. He remarks that it is 

 " passing strange that those who are 

 so prompt to deny the existence of 

 purpose in Nature when there is a 

 question of teleology, or when theo- 

 logical implications are suspected, 

 are the very first to insist on the evi- 

 dence of mind or purpose when in 

 their own case it is demanded by the 

 exigencies of argument or discov- 

 ery " ; and he cites as a case in point 

 the conclusions founded by men of 

 science on the discovery of "arrow- 

 heads and flint flakes in certain de- 

 posits whose age is indisputable." It 

 is a great pity that Palay is not alive 

 to congratulate Father Zahm on this 

 neat application of his own method. 

 The standpoint here is exactly that 

 of Paley which we were given to 

 understand had been abandoned. 

 Arrowheads are not things that 

 grow. The method of their produc- 

 tion is known to us; and it is in the 

 light of experience that we attribute 

 their origin to human agency, and 



by the most necessary inference that 

 we form conclusions as to the age of 

 the human race from the situations 

 in which such implements are found. 

 But if, because we are obliged to rec- 

 ognize purpose in the manufacture 

 of an arrowhead, we are equally 

 obliged to recognize it in the first 

 organic form presented to us, what 

 need was there for amending Paley's 

 argument? Our reverend contribu- 

 tor is making the whole work of Dar- 

 win of none effect by his traditions: 

 and yet he preluded his argument by 

 a general acceptance of Darwinism. 

 We fear the new scientific baptism 

 has not yet produced its full effect. 



So once more we come round to 

 the real point at issue. It is not dis- 

 puted that evolution produces results 

 which present a resemblauce to the 

 products of human design, in so far 

 as the accomplishment of definite re- 

 sults by definite means is concerned ; 

 but where is the proof that mind has 

 guided the action of evolution? 

 Where is the proof that the prod- 

 ucts of evolution to-day are precisely 

 the results that a superintending 

 mind aimed at ? Can Divine inten- 

 tion be quoted with any greater cer- 

 tainty in the " adapted " forms which 

 survive than in the unadapted or 

 less adapted ones that perish? We 

 do not say that the teleological view 

 is false; we only say that it requires 

 to support it something more than 

 a mere partial resemblance between 

 the effects of evolution and those of 

 purposive human action. We are 

 far from quarreling with any opti- 

 mistic creed or any religious inter- 

 pretation of the universe; but it is 

 right to protest when facts are put to 

 a strain which they are not able to 

 bear, and when consequently a sci- 

 entific theory is in danger of losing 

 its scientific value. 



Our contributor speaks with dis- 

 approval of those who find "in the 

 chance interaction of eternal force 



