204 LAY SERMONS, ESSAYS. AND REVIEWS. [xin. 



mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence. 

 And if the cat type has long persisted as we know it, the inter 

 pretation of the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not 

 that the cats have remained invariable, but that such varieties 

 as have incessantly occurred have been, on the whole, less 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 entirely 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 naturalist, 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 

 lias done good service in keeping before our minds, without being 

 false to the fundamental principles of a scientific conception of 

 the universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleo 

 logist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian 

 hypothesis. 



But leaving our own impressions of the &quot; Origin of Species,&quot; 

 and turning to those passages specially 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 pay 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 good of its possessor. They believe 

 that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, 

 or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to 

 my theory yet I fully admit that many structures are of no direct use to 

 their possessor.&quot; 



And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, he concludes 

 (p. 200) :- 



* Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making some 

 little allowance&quot; for the direct action of physical conditions) may be viewed 



