88 W. I. Burnett on the Relations of Cells to the 
This view of organization, which widely separates the organic 
from the inorganic world, as we can comprehend each through 
the expression of their forces ;—which gives an inherent dignity 
to individual existence, because there is always an end in view,— 
this view of organization, I repeat, is called the teleological one. — 
The other and second view is fundamentally different. Adopt- 
ing it, one does not recognize that the forces of organized are 
more in number, or different in character from those of unorgall 
ized matter;—the fact of organization being due to a certain 
combination of powers possessed by all material forms. And 
when this combination has once taken place, there necessarily — 
results, in virtue of it and the forces impressed on matter in Its 
beginning, a certain end which is called individual existence. 
The common: phenomena of organization, therefore, are due t0 
the blind working of the laws of necessity, and which are irre — 
spective of any purpose; they also involve no conditions excepr 
~ 
= 
ing those properly belonging to Chemistry and Physics. 
According to this view also, the so-called “ individual adapta 
tion” does not result from a determinate idea seeking an expre 
sion, but rather ensues from a combination of blind forces, which 
the Deity impressed upon matter in the beginning. “Design 
nature, therefore, is only another set of terms for necessity of 
physical condition, Again, when we see the habits and col 
formation of an animal svited to the circumstances under which 
it is found, we are not to attribute this to an idea preéxisting all, 
and thus seeking its material expression; but are to regard 
waole in the light of a necessity; for the very fact of the exist 
ing state of conditions implies that, were they different, the ani | 
mal would not exist ; and therefore the very data we reason from; 
determine the idea of necessity as far as justly applicable © + 
works of an almighty power. si 
This view of nature which ranges all its phenomena under the — 
domain of physical forces, thus giving, in one sense, the same — 
dignity to inorganic as to organic forms,—this view of organize — 
tion, I repeat, is called the physical one. 1 fae ES 
~_ In this brief description of these two widely dissimilar views 
of organization, I may have failed to express clearly the grounds 
—— distinction; for nothing is more difficult than the 
We will how turn to the arguments for and against each of 
these views, at least as far as dependent upon cell-studies. 
The first question is, does the adaptation perceived in the oF 
ganic, differ in character from that perceived in the i 
