"WHAT TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE: TELEOLOGY OK EVOLUTION. 21 
stances, as different materials and different facilities came suc- 
cessively to hand. 
W e will take another group of animals — the Entozoa. These 
are animals which, as the name implies, live within other 
animals. The manner and course of life in at least one well 
known instance is as follows : — The egg is deposited on the 
ground ; it is swallowed by some herbivorous animal, in the 
stomach of which the embryo escapes from the egg. It makes 
its way through the walls of the stomach, and by the general 
circulation may be carried into any part of the tissues of its 
host. It there developes into a form known as cysticercus or 
bladder-tail. Its nutriment is of course derived from the 
animal in which it resides — a pig it may be, or some other. 
But it is not designed to end its life either in this form or in 
this position. Let the pig be killed and eaten by man, it may 
be. or some other carnivorous animal, and then the cysticercus, 
drawing its head out of its bag, with hooks and suckers fastens 
on to the intestine of its new host, and budding out an im- 
mense series of segments, becomes a tape-worm. If, therefore, 
the tape-worm is the result of distinct creation, it must have 
been distinctly created with a view to the death of one animal 
and the disease of another. Nay more, distinct creation of the 
adult tape-worm must have been itself the distinct creation of 
disease, and of disease in one of its most repulsive forms. An 
animal of so low an organisation as to be little more capable of 
happiness than a cabbage is thus supposed to have been in- 
vented, by the direct exercise of an ingenuity that one would 
scarcely dare to call divine, to be the scourge of pigs, and of 
all pig-eating carnivores. These are not solitary instances ; 
they might be supplemented by hundreds more. 
Nevertheless, throughout the whole animal creation, not a 
single creature has been found with endowments injurious to 
itself. Paley especially insists on this. “ The world,” he says, 
“ abounds with contrivances ; and all the contrivances which 
we are acquainted with are directed to beneficial purposes. 
Evil, no doubt, exists, but is never, that we can perceive, the 
object of contrivance. Teeth are contrived to eat, not to ache.” 
And again, 66 We never discover a train of contrivance to bring 
about an evil purpose. No anatomist ever discovered a system 
of organization calculated to produce pain and disease ; or in 
explaining the parts of the human body, ever said, this is to 
irritate, this to inflame.” His point is, that no creature possesses 
contrivances expressly for its own injury. He might have added 
that no creature possesses contrivances expressly for the benefit 
of others — a circumstance, as inconsistent with the idea of 
special design as could well be imagined. But Paley’s own 
point is almost equally inconsistent with that idea, since it 
