22 EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW. 



iucipiency of complex structures. This has been used 

 with greater force by the Rev. J. J. Murphy, Professor 

 Mivart, and others, against that (as I believe) erroneous 

 view of evolution which is now generally received as 

 Darwinism. 



" There is also a further use," says Paley, " to be 

 made of this present example, and that is as it pre- 

 cisely contradicts the opinion, that the parts of animals 

 may have been all formed by what is called appetency, 

 i. e. endeavour, perpetuated and imperceptibly working 

 its effect through an incalculable series of generations. 

 We have here no endeavour, but the reverse of it; a 

 constant resistency and reluctance. The endeavour is 

 all the other way. The pressure of the ligament con- 

 strains the tendons ; the tendons react upon the pres- 

 sure of the ligament. It is impossible that the ligament 

 should ever have been generated by the exercise of the 

 tendons, or in the course of that exercise, forasmuch as 

 the force of the tendon perpendicularly resists the fibre 

 which confines it, and is constantly endeavouring not to 

 form but to rupture and displace the threads of which 

 the ligament is composed." * 



This must suffice. 



"True theories," says M. Flourens, inspired by a 

 passage from Fontenelle, which he proceeds to quote, 

 " true theories make themselves," they are not made, 

 but are born and grow ; they cannot be stopped from 

 insisting upon their vitality by anything short of 

 intellectual violence, nor will a little violence only 

 suffice to kill them. " True theories," he continues, 

 * Natural Theology,' ch. ix. 



