EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY. 3S9 



something which produces— as well as that whicli re- 

 sults in the sur\dval of — '' the fittest.'' 



We have been considering tins chiss of questions 

 only as a naturalist might who souglit for the ])rnper 

 or reasonable interpretation of the pruldem before 

 him, unmingled with considerations from any other 

 source. Weightier arguments in the last resort, 

 drawn from the intellectual and moral constitution of 

 man, lie on a higher plane, to which it was unneces- 

 sary for our particular pui-pose to rise, liowever indis- 

 pensable this be to a full presentation of the evidence 

 of mind in l^ature. To us the evidence, judged as 

 impartially as we are capable of judging, a])23ears con- 

 vincing. But, whatever view one unconvinced may 

 take, it cannot remain doubtful what position a the- 

 ist ought to occupy. If he cannot recognize design 

 in Nature because of evolution, he may be ranked 

 with those of wliom it was said, '' Except ye see 

 signs and wonders ye will not believe." How strange 

 that a convinced theist sliould be so prone to associate 

 design only with miracle ! 



All turns, however, upon what is meant by this 

 Nature, to which it appears more and more probable 

 that the being and becoming — no less than the well- 

 being and succession — of species and genera, as well 

 as of individuals, are committed. To us it means " the 

 world of force and movement in time and space," as 

 Aristotle defined it — the system and totality of things 

 in the visible universe. 



What is generally called Nature Prof. T}Tidall 

 names matter — a peculiar nomenclature, requirin 

 new definitions (as he avers), in\ating misunderstand 



IT 



