EVOLUTION AND TELEOLOGY. 817 



fangled name of Monists, they loudly and triumphantly proclaimed 

 that it was all over with teleology, and that it could, without further 

 ado, be relegated to the limbo of exploded theory and fanciful hy- 

 pothesis. Biichner asserted that " modern investigation and natural 

 philosophy have shaken themselves tolerably free from these empty 

 and superficial conceptions of design, and leave such childish views 

 to those who are incapable of liberating themselves from such anthro- 

 pomorphic ideas, which, unfortunately, still obtain in school and 

 Church to the detriment of truth and science." * And Haeckel, 

 with his usual dogmatism, writes, * u I maintain with regard to the 

 much-talked-of purpose in Nature, that it really has no existence ex- 

 cept for those persons who observe phenomena in plants and animals 

 in the most superficial manner." f 



The more profound and philosophic men of science did not, 

 however, share the notions of Haeckel and Biichner. They ad- 

 mitted, it is true, that the teleology of Paley and of the authors of the 

 Bridgewater Treatises was no longer tenable, but they did not, there- 

 fore, conclude that teleology was completely annihilated. Far from 

 it. Teleology, they said, must be modified so as to meet the de- 

 mands of modern science and research, and, as so modified, it is 

 stronger, nobler, and more comprehensive than ever before. So 

 thought among others Huxley and Gray, and so think also Wallace, 

 Mivart, and the Duke of Argyll. 



" The most remarkable service to the philosophy of biology ren- 

 dered by Mr. Darwin," writes Huxley in his Darwiniana, " is the 

 reconciliation of teleology and morphology, and the explanation 

 of the facts of both which his views offer. ... It is necessary to 

 remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by 

 the doctrine of evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental 

 principle of evolution." $ 



America's great naturalist, Prof. Asa Gray, is no less explicit. 

 "Let us," he says, "recognize Darwin's great service to natural 

 science in bringing back to it teleology, so that, instead of morphol- 

 ogy versus teleology, we have morphology wedded to teleology." 



" The idea of development in all its logical forms," declares the 

 Duke of Argyll, in his late admirable work, The Philosophy of Be- 

 lief, " is not antagonistic to, but in perfect harmony with, the idea 

 of purpose. Design, from first to last, from its first conception to 

 the attainment of its farthest aims, is, and so far as we know, must 

 be a process of development. That development may be slow, or it 

 may be quick and sudden in its steps. It may be effected in ways 

 widely various, as by outward building or inward growth, but its 



* Force and Matter, p. 218. f History of Creation, vol. i, p. 19. 



% Page 110. * Darwiniana, p. 288. 



VOL. LII. 60 



