1876 TELEOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY 195 



of the theory of evolution, namely, how far is it 

 consistent with the argument from design ? 



Granting provisionally the force of Paley's argu- 

 ment in individual cases of adaptation, and illustrating 

 it by the hand and its representative in various of 

 the Mammalia, he proceeds to show by the facts of 

 morphology that the argument, as commonly stated, 

 fails ; that each mechanism, each animal, was not 

 specially made to suit the particular purpose we find 

 it serving, but was developed from a single common 

 type. Yet in a limited and special sense he finds 

 teleology to be not inconsistent with morphology. 

 The two sets of facts flow from a common cause, 

 evolution. Descent by modification accounts for 

 similarity of structure; the process of gradual adapta- 

 tion to conditions accounts for the existing adaptation 

 to purpose. To be a teleologist and yet accept 

 evolution it is only necessary "to suppose that the 

 original plan was sketched out that the purpose 

 was foreshadowed in the molecular arrangements out 

 of which the animals have come." 



This was no new view of his. While, ever since 

 his first review of the Origin in 1859 (Coll. Ess. ii. 6), 

 he had declared the commoner and coarser forms of 

 teleology to find their most formidable opponent in 

 the theory of evolution, and in 1869, addressing the 

 Geological Society, had spoken of " those final causes, 

 which have been named barren virgins, but which 

 might be more fitly termed the hetairce of philosophy, 

 so constantly have they led men astray " (ib. viii 80 ; 



