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



fitted to get on in the world than the existing 

 stock. 



If we apprehend the spirit of the &quot; Origin of 

 Species &quot; rightly, then, nothing can be more en 

 tirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it is 

 commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. 

 So far from being a &quot; Teleologist in the fullest sense 

 of the word,&quot; 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 &quot; Origin 

 of Species,&quot; 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 not affirm that 

 every detail in the structure of an animal has been 

 created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199) : 



&quot; 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 



