1897] SCHILLER ON DARWINISM AND DESIGN 409 
for June 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 Natwral 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 Darwinism 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. 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 
veneration out of date now.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, 7.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.”? 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 Of. p. 144. 2 Contemporary Review, p. 868. 
2F 
