} 
i 
_is a mistaken one. 
82 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” im 
We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent 
very widely from many of Professor Kolliker’s 
remarks; and from none more thoroughly thai 
from those in which he seeks to define what 
we may term the philosophical position of Dai 
winism. | 
‘¢ Darwin,” says Professor Kolliker, ‘‘ is, in the fullest sense of 
the word, aeleologist.) He says quite distinctly (First Editio 
pp. 199, 200)\that evéty particular in the structure of an anim 
has been created for its benefit, and he regards the whole seri 
of animal forms only from this point of view.” 
And again: 
* 
“7, The teleological general conception adopted by Da vin 
** Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or 
of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may be 
either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent. 
‘The assumption that an organism exists “only on account of 
some definite end in view, and represents something more tha 
the incorporation of a general idea, or law, implies a one-sic 
conception of the universe. Assuredly, every organ has, ax 
every organism fulfils, its end, but its purpose is not the condition 
of its existence. Every organism is also sufficiently perfect fo 
the purpose it serves, and in that, at least, it is useless to seek 
for a cause of its improvement.” 
It is singular how differently one and the s 
book will impress different minds. That whi 
struck the present writer most foray on his 
perusal of the “ Origin of Species” was the et 
viction that Teleology, as commonly understood. 
had received its deathblow at Mr. Darwin’s hands. 
For the teleological argument runs thus : an ongan 
