1897] SCHILLER ON DARWINISM AND DESIGN 409 



for -Tune last — an article that, though dealing with physical science, 

 bears the most obvious traces of a metaphysician's handiwork. I 

 certainly do not propose to criticise this article in detail ; for such a 

 criticism, to be at all adequate, might require an article a good deal 

 longer than Professor Schiller's own : and, fortunately, any such de- 

 tailed criticism were superfluous ; firstly, because all readers who have 

 any familiarity with biological science may perceive for themselves 

 the errors into which Professor Schiller has fallen ; and, secondly, 

 because those readers of his article who are entirely ignorant of the 

 subject would hardly be among the readers of Natural Science, nor 

 would they perhaps be affected by my arguments even if they read 

 them. I propose, therefore, merely to call attention to two or three 

 notable points in Darurinism and Design. 



The article, which opens with somewhat of a flourish of trumpets, 

 and excites expectations that are by no means realised in the sequel, 

 is directed to prove that ' Darwinism ' has not necessarily excluded 

 the possibility of a teleological conception of organic nature ; but 

 that, properly scrutinised, evolutionism rather strengthens the argu- 

 ment from ' Design' than otherwise. 1 Now Professor Schiller makes 

 one or two initial omissions of a notable character. He intentionally 

 confines himself to " living nature," thus putting aside altogether the 

 awkward question as to whether the evolution of solar systems be, 

 or be not, ascribable to Design ; and he writes as though evolution- 

 ism and Darwinism were the same thing — as though to demonstrate 

 an error in any one of Darwin's initial assumptions were to at once 

 clear out of the way all biological objections to the teleological con- 

 ception of the world. The former omission is highly significant of 

 the philosophical value, or otherwise, of Professor Schiller's article ; 

 the latter oversight appears to me to vitiate his entire argument, and 

 to render it little more than a beating of the air ; and one is tempted 

 to say that the article would have been topical in 1860, but is a 

 generation out of date now. 



Professor Schiller is good enough to tell us that the old-fashioned 

 argument from design was rotten even before the advent of Dar- 

 winism ; but he proposes to recast the argument in such fashion 

 that ' Darwinism ' shall be no obstacle, but rather indeed an as- 

 sistance, to the teleologist. He tells us that " before the argument 

 from design has any theological value, two things have to be shown : 

 (1) that intelligence, i.e., action directed to a purpose, has been at 

 work ; and (2) that the intelligence has not been that of any of the 

 admitted existences." 2 The former part of this statement reads 

 rather curiously ; but it only means that, for the author's purpose, 

 it is essential to prove that the adaptations in organic nature have 

 not been brought about solely by a blind mechanical process, but 



1 Cf. p. 144. 2 Contemporary Review, p. 868. 



2 F 



