THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL CAUSES. 505 



God any intention 9 ." And when Cuvier speaks of 

 the combination of organs in such order that they 

 may be in consistence with the part which the ani- 

 mal has to play in nature; his rival rejoins 10 , I 

 "know nothing of animals which have to play a 

 part in nature." Such a notion is, he holds, unphi- 

 losophical and dangerous. It is an abuse of final 

 causes which makes the cause to be engendered 

 by the effect. And to illustrate still further his 

 own view, he says, " I have read concerning fishes, 

 that because they live in a medium which resists 

 more than air, their motive forces are calculated so 

 as to give them the power of progression under 

 those circumstances. By this mode of reasoning, 

 you would say of a man who makes use of crutches, 

 that he was originally destined to the misfortune of 

 having a leg paralyzed or amputated." 



How far this doctrine of unity in the plan in 

 animals is admissible or probable in physiology when 

 kept within proper limits, that is, when not put in 

 opposition to the doctrine of a purpose involved in 

 the plan of animals, I do not pretend even to con- 

 jecture. The question is one which appears to be 

 at present deeply occupying the minds of the most 

 learned and profound physiologists; and such persons 

 alone, adding to their knowledge and zeal, judicial 



9 " Je me garde de preter a Dieu aucune intention." Phil. 

 Zool. 10. 



10 " Je ne connais point d'animal qui DOIVE jouer un role dans 

 la nature." p. 65. 



