13 
to say unphilosophical, and directly opposed to the very prin- 
ciples upon which the argument of design is based. On the 
other hand, they form one of the strongest witnesses to evolu- 
tion. They may be said to be a necessary part of it ; for, were 
any abrupt changes of structure constantly occurring, we should 
at once begin to infer that some power was as constantly at 
work to interfere and make such changes, somewhat after the 
notions of the cataclysms and recreations of early geological 
theorists. When such sudden breaks appear to occur, the 
balance of probability is greatly in favour of the inference of 
the previous existence of, but now extinct forms, which once 
united such well-differentiated types as may now exist. 
It may be objected that I have regarded rudimentary organs 
too much in the light of atrophied conditions, and not as origins 
for future development ; and it is worth while observing that 
there are two ways of regarding them, both, however, equally 
in harmony with the doctrine of evolution; and in many cases 
it is at present impossible to say with certainty which would 
be the correct view. Thus, in the case of the lizards, it may 
be that the condition of the limbs of the Pseudopus, which 
are rudimentary and concealed beneath the skin, was the fore- 
runner of the state of the limbs represented by the other genera 
given above. We cannot say. The argument, however, is 
equally sound on either supposition. On the first, the design of 
the limbs dies out, and is replaced by the snake-like method of 
progression ; on the other, the latter mode of locomotion gra- 
dually disappears, and is replaced by limbs. 
Design No. 2. — I must now consider the second instance of 
design, or use.* Having acknowledged an organ, as the eye, 
to be designed, we see design in the use of it. Here is the 
supposed stronghold of the teleologist. Many organs seem so 
obviously intended for definite uses, that they love to dilate 
upon the requisite adaptations which conspire to fulfil the use 
of an organ. Thus no # one can deny the use of sight to the 
eye, or hearing to the ear, and so forth. And no one can deny 
that the mechanism or structure of such organ is most admir- 
able. But natural theologians very often go too far, and try to 
discover a use in everything ; the result is, they not unfrequently 
* It will probably be felt immediately that, as a general rule, structure 
and -use stand or fall together. But there are some instances where an organ, 
by its elaborate or peculiar structure, seems to justify a purpose, yet that 
purpose may remain undiscovered. Such, for example, was the spleen. 
When, however, we see an organ with a decided use, as the leg of a lizard, 
which is used for running, I repeat that we are justified in describing such 
an organ as useless when it remains concealed, in a rudimentary condition, 
under the skin. 
