OCR Text |
Show 370 DARWINIAN A. whole question resolves itself into one respecting the ultimate veracity of N atnre, or of the author of N a-tm ·e, if there be any. Passing from these attempts to undermine the foundati~n of the doctrine-which we judge to be unsuccessful-we turn to the consideration of those aimed at the superstructure. Evidences of design may be relevant, hut not cogent. They may, as Mill thought, preponderate, or the wavering balance may incline the other way. There are two lines of argument: one against the sufficiency, the other against the necessity, of the principle of design. Design has been denied on the ground that it squares with only one part of the facts, and fails to explain others ; it may be superseded by showing that all the facts are in _the way of being explained without it. The things which the principle of design does not explain are many and serious. Some are in their nature ip.explicable, at least are beyond the power and province of science. Others are of matters which scientific students have to consider, and upon which they may form opinions, more or less well-grounded. As to biological science-with which alone we are concerned-it is getting to be generally thought that this principle, as commonly understood, is weighted with much more than it can carry. This statement will not be thought exaggerated by those most familiar with the facts and the ideas of the age, and accustomed to look them in the face. Design is held to, no doubt, by most, and by a sure instinct; not, however, as always offering an explanation of the facts, but in spite of the failure to do so. . . EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY. 311 The stumbling-blocks are various, and they lie in every path: we can allude onlY. to one or two as specimens. Adaptation and utility are the marks of design. \Vhat,. then, are organs not adapted to use marks of~ FunctiOnless org~ns -of some sort are the heritage of almost every speCies. We have ways of seeming to account for them-and of late one which may really account for them-but they are u:saccountable on the I?:inciple of design. Some, shutting their eyes to the difficulty, deny that we know them to be-functionless, and prefer to believe they must have a use because they exist, and are more or less connected with organs which are correlated to obvious use· but only blindfolded persons care to tread the round of so narrow a circle. ?f late some such abortive organs in flowers and f~·wt~ are found to have a use, though not t~e use of their kmd. But unwavering believers in design should not trust too much to instances of this sort.. There is an old adage that, if anything be kept long enough, a use will be found for it. Jf the followin¥ up of this line, ~hen it comes in our way, should b~mg us round a~ain to a teleologic~} principle, it Will not be one whwh conforms to the prevalent ideas now attackea: It is commonly said that abortive and useless organs exist for the sake of symmetry, or as parts of a plan. To say this, and stop there, is a fine instance of mere seeming to say something. For, under the prlnciple of design, what is the sense of introducing useless parts into a useful organism, and what shadow of explanation does " symmetry " give ~ To go fur- |