we might reasonably expect to
find if man be indeed the crown of the divine plan, the event to which,
for untold ages, all things were designedly tending? What we actually do
find is that the structure of man, physically and mentally, is such as
to altogether negative the notion of complete or harmonious adjustment
to environment. That the human has within it a large number of vestigial
structures--some scientists place it as high as one hundred and
seventy--is now well known, and forms at the same time one of the
evidences of evolution and an impeachment of the theistic theory. There
is only need to instance now the vermiform appendage, which forms the
seat of appendicitis, the "wisdom" teeth, of very little use, and one of
the most fruitful of causes of disease of the teeth, the hair which
covers the human body, now of no use whatever, except to form a lodgment
for microbes, and so makes the acquisition of disease the more certain.
In addition to the number of rudimentary organs that actually encourage
disease--Metchnikoff counts among these the larger intestine--the body
is full of rudimentary muscles and structures that when not positively
harmful, impose a tax on the organism for which no corresponding service
is performed.

The meaning and significance of these structures are, however, so well
recognised that one need not dwell upon their existence. Not so well
known is the complementary fact that just as in his physical structure
man bears evidence of his emergence from lower forms of life, which
result in a certain degree of disharmony between him and an ideal
environment, so in his psychic life his instincts and feelings are often
such as to prevent that ideal adaptation which so many desire. The
earlier conception of optimistic evolutionists that the instincts of man
were, through the operation of natural selection, converted into
beneficent guides is quite faulty. In itself this was probably a
survival of the theism which tried to prove that this was the best of
all possible worlds, and which led evolutionists to try and prove that
their theory was also ethically desirable. At any rate, the theory of
the wholly beneficent nature of human instincts is not tenable. Our
instincts are inherited from our animal ancestors; they were brought to
fruition under conditions different in form from those which obtain with
human beings, with the result that whether an instinct is helpful or the
contrary depends largely up