410 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Covvcspoudcuci:. 



MR. SPENCER'S TELEOLOGY. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : In your review of the Rev. Dr. 

 Zahm's article on Evolution and Teleoloecy, 

 which appeared in the April issue of the 

 Popular Science Monthly, there are two points 

 which are strangely at variance with the logi- 

 cal acumen displayed in the remainder of the 

 review. 



The first of these is the method you em- 

 ploy to repudiate Dr. Zahm's inclusion of 

 Huxley and Spencer among the teleologists. 

 You state that Huxley has been misinterpret- 

 ed and that " Mr. Spencer is not a teleolo- 

 gist," but you give no facts to corroborate 

 these assertions. As presented by you they 

 are mere statements and as such can not carry 

 weight. 



But the second point is a far more seri- 

 ous one. AVhen you deny that Mr. Spencer 

 is a teleologist you overlook the fact that he 

 has declared himself to be one. In his re 

 sponse to Mr. Sidgwick he discriminates be- 

 tween " a legitimate and an illegitimate tele- 

 ology," and, after illustrating this difference, 

 concludes his demonstrations as follows : " I 

 am . . . arguing teleologically but in the le- 

 gitimate way." 



Were Dr. Zahm's conception of teleology 

 the only possible one, your statement in re- 

 gard to Mr. Spencer would undoubtedly be 

 true. But, as the above quotation from Mr. 

 Spencer shows, there are at least two possi- 

 ble conceptions. One of these, the " illegiti- 

 mate," is that accepted by Dr. Zahm ; while 

 the other, the " legitimate," is doubtless that 

 referred to by Huxley when he says, " It is 

 necessary to remember that there is a wider 

 teleology which ... is actually based upon 

 the fundamental principle of evolution." 



The fallacy of Dr. Zahm's argument does 

 not lie in his assertion that modern men of 

 science have given evidence in favor of te- 

 leology, but in his failure to perceive the 

 two meanings of the word. 



Makgaret Chase. 

 New York, Apr il JO, IS'JS. 



[In saying that Spencer and Huxley were 

 not teleologists we expressed ourselves 

 broadly and, in relation to the matter in 

 hand, we think correctly. What Mr. Spen- 

 cer speaks of as a legitimate teleology is not 

 teleology at all as the word is generally 

 understood, and has nothing whatever in com- 

 mon with the teleology of Dr. Zahm. " Tele- 

 ology of a kind," Mr. Spencer says, " is ne- 

 cessarily involved in the discussion of human 

 conduct"; and he gi/es a biological illustra- 

 tion to prove that it is possible to argue tele- 



ologically and yet in a legitimate way. This 

 is hardly the same thing as " declaring him- 

 self a teleologist." Now what is Mr. Spen- 

 cer's " legitimate teleology " ? According to 

 the example he furnishes it is legitimate 

 teleology to say that the chief end subserved 

 by the hardness of the shell of a particular 

 seed is the preservation of the life of the 

 plant producing the seed ; but he is most 

 careful to rule out absolutely the idea that 

 the preserving of the life of the plant had 

 anything to do with the hardening of the 

 seed in the first place. The hardening oc- 

 curred through physiological causes ; and 

 this peculiarity, happening to favor the life 

 of the plant, became in course of time, un- 

 der the action of the law of selection, an 

 established characteristic. The teleology 

 here may be legitimate, but it is of a very 

 shadowy nature, and we do not think we 

 were far wrong in ignoring it altogether. 



As regards Huxley, his position is simply 

 that it is impossible either to prove or to dis- 

 prove a teleological thesis that takes in the 

 whole universe and all recorded and unre- 

 corded time. When he says that " there is a 

 wider teleology which is not touched by the 

 doctrine of evolution, but is actually based 

 upon the fundamental proposition of evolu- 

 tion," he does not mean, as our correspond- 

 ent, following Dr. Zahm, seems to suppose, 

 that the fundamental proposition of evolu- 

 tion supports the teleological view, but that 

 the upholders of the doctrine in question 

 take their stand upon that proposition. 

 What is the proposition as formulated by 

 Huxley ? It is that " the whole world, living 

 and not living, is the result of mutual inter- 

 action according to definite laws of the forces 

 possessed by the molecules of which the 

 primitive nebulosity of the universe was 

 composed." The new teleology, as repre- 

 sented by Dr. Zahm, accepts the proposition, 

 and says that the whole machine was de- 

 signed to work exactly as it has worked in 

 the past, is working in the present, and will 

 work in the future. You may tell the per- 

 son who makes this assertion that he does 

 not know anything alwut it, but that will not 

 make him Inidge. Huxley's own position is 

 that we do not know anything about it; and 

 we were therefore entirely justified in saying 

 that he was not a teleologist. He consist- 

 ently held that such problems transcended 

 human faculties. 



Our treatment of Dr. Zahm's article in 

 the Editor's Table was necessarily very brief, 

 and we are glad our correspondent has given 

 us this opportunity of bringing the views of 

 two of the leading exponents of the evolu- 

 tion philosophy into fuller relief. — Ed.] 



