catch mice
well--mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence.
And if the cat-type has long persisted as we know it, the interpretation
of the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not that the cats have
remained invariable, but that such varieties as have incessantly
occurred have been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in the world
than the existing stock.
If we apprehend the spirit of the "Origin of Species" rightly, then,
nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it
is commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a
"Teleologist in the fullest sense of the word," we should deny that he
is a Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that,
apart from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable
service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of Nature to
recognise, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which
are so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology has done good
service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the
fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe. The
apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the
Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.
But leaving our own impressions of the "Origin of Species," and turning
to those passages specially cited by Professor Koelliker, we cannot admit
that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them. Darwin, if we read
him rightly, does _not_ affirm that every detail in the structure of an
animal has been created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199):--
"The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest
lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine
that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of
its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been
created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This
doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory--yet I
fully admit that many structures are of no direct use to their
possessor."
And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, he concludes (p.
200):--
"Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making
some little allowance for the direct action of physical conditions)
may be viewed either as having been of special use to some
ancestral form, or as b
|