248 CLASSICS OF MODERN SCIENCE 

 degree, individual adaptation to a purpose. If, however, rational 

 power interpose after creation merely to sustain, and not as an im- 

 mediately active agent, it may, so far as natural science is concerned, 

 be entirely excluded from the consideration of the creation. 



But the teleological view leads to further difficulties in the explana- 

 tion, and especially with respect to generation. If we assume each 

 organism to be formed by a power which acts according to a certain 

 predominant idea, a portion of this power may certainly reside in the 

 ovum during generation ; but then we must ascribe to this subdivision 

 of the original power, at the separation of the ovum from the body 

 of the mother, the capability of producing an organism similar to that 

 which the power, of which it is but a portion, produced : that is, we 

 must assume that this power is infinitely divisible, and yet that each 

 part may perform the same actions as the whole power. If, on the 

 other hand, the power of organized bodies reside, like the physical 

 powers, in matter as such, and be set free only by a certain combina- 

 tion of the molecules, as, for instance, electricity is set free by the 

 combination of a zinc and copper plate, then also by the conjunction of 

 molecules to form an ovum the power may be set free, by which 

 the ovum is capable of appropriating to itself fresh molecules, and 

 these newly-conjoined molecules again by this very mode of combina- 

 tion acquire the same power to assimilate fresh molecules. The first 

 development of the many forms of organized bodies — the progressive 

 formation of organic nature indicated by geology — is also much more 

 difficult to understand according to the teleological than the physical 

 view. 



Another objection to the teleological view may be drawn from the 

 foregoing investigation. The molecules, as we have seen, are not 

 immediately combined in various ways, as the purpose of the organism 

 requires, but the formation of the elementary parts of organic bodies 

 is regulated by laws which are essentially the same for all elementary 

 parts. One can see no reason why this should be the case, if each 

 organism be endued with a special power to frame the parts accord- 

 ing to the purpose which they have to fulfil : it might much rather be 

 expected that the formative principle, although identical for organs 

 physiologically the same, would yet in different tissues be correspond- 

 ingly varied. This resemblance of the elementary parts has, in the 



