6 2 6 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



by Darwinism, the doctrine of design is 

 simply enlarged and seen to operate with a 

 wider scope, and to stand upon a more com- 

 prehensive basis. He is by no means ob- 

 livious of the difficulties with which teleology 

 is encompassed, and recognizes that it was 

 the subject of powerful philosophical assault 

 before Darwinism arose. But he sees also 

 that the obstacles to the acceptance of the 

 principle were due to the old ante-Dar- 

 winian views of the " Origin of Species." 

 We can do no justice to this closely-reasoned 

 essay by quotation from it, as it requires to 

 be fully and carefully read to get a clear 

 view of the author's position. A brief pas- 

 sage or two may, however, help to indicate 

 it. Speaking of the contradiction involved 

 in the old teleological interpretation of the 

 origin of the organs and parts of living creat- 

 ures, he says : 



" The error, as we suppose, lies in the com- 

 bination of the principle of design with the hy- 

 pothesis of the immutability and isolated crea- 

 tion of species. The latter hypothesis, in its na- 

 ture improbable, has, on scientific grounds, be- 

 come so far improbable that few, even of the 

 anti-Darwinian naturalists, now hold to it; and, 

 whatever may once have been its religious 

 claims, it is at present a hindrance rather than 

 a help to any just and consistent teleology. 



"By the adoption of the Darwinian hypothe- 

 sis, or something like it, which we incline to 

 favor, many of the difficulties are obviated, and 

 others diminished. In the comprehensive and 

 far-reaching teleology which may take the place 

 of the former narrow conceptions, organs aud 

 even faculties, useless to the individual, find 

 their explanation and reason of being. Either 

 they have done service in the past or they may 

 do service in the future. They may have been 

 essentially useful in one way in a past species, 

 and, though now functionless, they may be 

 turned to useful account in some very different 

 way hereafter. In botany several cases come to 

 our mind which suggest such interpretation." 



And again : 



"Darwinian teleology has the special advan- 

 tage of accounting for the imperfections and 

 failures as well as for successes. It not only 

 accounts for them, but turns them to practical 

 account. It explains the seeming waste as be- 

 ing part and parcel of a great economical pro- 

 cess. Without the competing multitude, no 

 strangle for life; and, without this, no natural 

 selection and survival of the fittest, no continu- 

 ous adaptation to changing surroundings, no 

 diversification and improvement, leading from 

 lower up to higher and nobler forms. So the 

 most puzzling things of all to the old-school 

 ideologists are the principia of the Darwinian. 

 In this system the forms and species, in all their 



variety, are not mere ends in Ihemselves, but 

 the whole a series of means and ends, in the 

 contemplation of which we may obtain higher 

 and more comprehensive, and perhaps worthier, 

 as well as more consistent, views of design in 

 Nature than heretofore. At least, it would ap- 

 pear that in Darwinian evolution we may have 

 a theory that accords with if it does not explain 

 the principal facts, and a teleology that is free 

 from the common objections. 



" But is it a teleology, or rather to use the 

 new-fangled term a dysteleology ? That de- 

 pends upon how it is held. Darwinian evolu- 

 tion (whatever may be said of other kinds) is 

 neither thei6tical nor non-theistical. Its rela- 

 tions to the question of design belong to the 

 natural theologian, or, in the larger sense, to 

 the philosopher. So long as the world lasts it 

 will probably be open to any one to hold con- 

 sistently, in the last resort, either of the two hy- 

 potheses, that of a divine mind or that of no di- 

 vine mind. There is no way that we know of by 

 which the alternative may be excluded. Viewed 

 philosophically, the question only is, Which is 

 the better supported hypothesis of the two ? 



"We have only to say that the Darwinian 

 system, as we understand it, coincides well 

 with the thei6tic view of Nature. It not only 

 acknowledges purpose (in the Contemporary Re- 

 viewer's sense), but builds upon it; and if pur- 

 pose in this sense does not of itself imply de- 

 sign, it is certainly compatible with it, and sug- 

 gestive of it. Difficult as it may be to conceive 

 and impossible to demonstrate design in a whole 

 of which the series of parts appear to be con- 

 tingent, the alternative maybe yet more difficult 

 and less satisfactory. If all Nature is of a piece 

 as modern physical philosophy insists then 

 it seems clear that design must in some way, 

 and in some sense, pervade the system, or be 

 wholly absent from it. Of the alternatives, the 

 predication of design special, general, or uni- 

 versal, as the case may be is most natural to 

 the mind; while the exclusion of it throughout, 

 because some utilities may happen, many adap- 

 tations may be contingent results, and no or- 

 ganic maladaptations could continue, ruus coun- 

 ter to such analogies as we have to guide us, 

 and leads to a conclusion which few men ever 

 rested in.'" 



It may be added that Dr. Gray's vol- 

 ume is eminently readable, and, though 

 dealing with "solid" subjects, is far from 

 " heavy." The author has a great deal 

 more humor about him than the student of 

 his botanical manuals would be led to sus- 

 pect. But the readers of " Darwiniana " 

 will find that he is not only capable of fun, 

 but has given it a pretty free vent in these 

 pages. He seems half inclined to apolo- 

 gize for this, saying in his preface: 



" If it be objected that some of these pages 

 are written in a lightness of vein not quite con- 

 gruous with the gravity of the subject and tho 



