82 CRITICISMS ON &quot; THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES &quot; m 



We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent 

 very widely from many of Professor Kolliker s 

 remarks ; and from none more thoroughly than 

 from those in which he seeks to define what 

 we may term the philosophical position of Dar 

 winism. 



&quot; Darwin,&quot; says Professor Knllikur, &quot;is, in the fullest sense of 

 the word, a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition, 

 pp. 199, 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal 

 has been created for its benefit, and he regards the whole series 

 of animal forms only from this point of view.&quot; 



And again : 



&quot;7. The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin 

 is a mistaken one. 



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. 



&quot;The assumption that an organism exists only on account of 

 some definite end in view, and represents something more than 

 the incorporation of a general idea, or law, implies a one-sided 

 conception of the universe. Assuredly, every organ has, and 

 ever)* organism fulfils, its end, but its purpose is not the condition 

 of its existence. Every organism is also sufficiently perfect for 

 the purpose it serves, and in that, at least, it is useless to seek 

 for a cause of its improvement.&quot; 



It is singular how differently one and the same 

 book will impress different minds. That which 

 struck the present writer most forcibly on his first 

 perusal of the &quot; Origin of Species &quot; was the con 

 viction that Teleology, as commonly understood, 

 had received its deathblow at Mr. Darwin s hands. 

 For the teleological argument runs thus ; an organ 



