STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. 5 



sharply contrasted groups — a causal or mechanical, and 

 a teleological or vitdlisUo. The latter has prevailed 

 generally in biology until now, and accordingly the 

 animal and vegetable kingdoms have been considered 

 as the products of a creative power, acting for a definite 

 purpose. In the contemplation of every organism, the 

 unavoidable conviction seemed to press itself 'upon us, 

 that such a wonderful machine, so complicated an 

 apparatus for motion as exists in the organism, could 

 only be produced by a power analogous to, but infinitely 

 more powerful than the power of man in the construc- 

 tion of his machines." * 



A little lower down he continues : — 



" J maintain mth regard to " this •' miich talked of 

 'pji/rpose in nature ' that it has no existence lut for those 

 persons who observe phenomena in plants and animals in 

 the most superficial manner. Without going more deeply 

 into the matter, we can see at once that the rudi- 

 mentary organs are a formidable obstacle to this theory. 

 And, indeed, anyone who makes a really close study of 

 the organization and mode of life of the various animals 

 and plants, .... must necessarily come to the con- 

 clusion, that this ' purposiveness ' no more exists than 

 the much talked of ' beneficence ' of the Creator." t 



Professor Haeckel justly sees no alternative between, 

 upon the one hand, the creation of independent species by 

 a Personal God — by a " Creator," in fact, who " becomes 

 an organism, who designs a plan, reflects upon and 

 varies this plan, and finally forms creatures according 



* ' History of Creation,' vol. i. p. 18 (H. S. King and Co., 1876). 

 t Ibid. p. 19. 



