+ 
i 
i 
86 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 1 
fitted to get on in the world than the oxistini 
stock, : 
If we apprehend the spirit of the “Origin of 
Species” rightly, then, nothing can be more en- 
tirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it is 
commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theo 
So far from being a “ Teleologist in the fullest sense 
of the word,’ we should deny that he is a 
Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we 
should say that, apart from his merits as a na- 
turalist, he has rendered a most remarkable service 
to philosophical thought by enabling the student 
of Nature to recognise, to their fullest extent, those 
adaptations to purpose which are so striking in the 
organic world, and which Teleology has done good 
service in keeping before our minds, without being 
false to the fundamental principles of a scientific 
conception of the universe. The apparently diverg- 
ing teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morpho- 
logist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis. 
But leaving our own impressions of the “Origin 
of Species,” and turning to those passages especially 
cited by Professor Kolliker, we cannot admit that 
they bear the interpretation he puts upon them, 
Darwin, if we read him rightly, does zo¢ affirm that 
every detail in the structure of an animal has been 
created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199) :— 
‘‘The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the 
protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian 
doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the 
