TELEOLOGT, OLD AND NEW. 371 



A Newer Teleology. 



It would be a grave mistake, however, to think 

 that Haeckel and Biichner truthfully reflect the opin- 

 ions of scientists generally, or that the large body of 

 naturalists are at one with them in proclaiming that 

 the argument from design in nature is no longer ten- 

 able, or that Evolution and teleology are wholly in- 

 compatible. So far, indeed, is this from being the 

 case, that the most philosophical of contemporary 

 naturalists, those who are most competent to inter- 

 pret the facts and phenomena of nature and to draw 

 legitimate conclusions from the facts observed, are 

 almost unanimous in declaring that the teleological 

 argument, not only is not weakened, much less de- 

 stroyed, but that it is, on the contrary, illustrated 

 and corroborated in the most remarkable and unex- 

 pected manner. And strange as it may appear, the 

 very one who, according to Haeckel, Biichner, Vogt, 

 G. H. Lewes and others whose anti-theological ani- 

 mus is so marked as to require no comment, was 

 supposed to have banished forever from science and 

 theology, not only design and purpose but all final 

 causes whatsoever, is the very one who, above all 

 others, has put teleology on a firmer and a nobler 

 basis than it ever occupied before. We have no 

 longer, it is true, the argument as it was presented 

 by Paley, and developed by Chalmers and the au- 

 thors of the Bridgewater Treatises, but we have in its 

 stead one that is grander, more comprehensive, more 

 effective and more conclusive. 



