OCR Text |
Show 384 DARWINIAN A. the marks of purpose, and so carries the implication of design. The case is adduced as part of the evidence that Darwinian evolution supersedes design. But how~ Not certainly in the way this goes on from generation to generation; therefore, doubtless in the way it began. So we look for the explanation of how it came about at the first unintentionally or accidentally; how, under known or supposed conditions, it must have happened, or at least was likely to happen. And we read, " A spontaneous variation occurred, consisting in the passage of one eye to the opposite side of the head." That is all; and we suppose there is nothing more to be said. In short, this surprising thing was undesigned because it took place, and has taken place ever since ! The writer presumes, moreover (but this is an obiter dictum), that the peculiarity originated long after flounders had fixed the habit of swimming on one side (and in this particular case it is rather difficult to see how the two may have 'gone on pari passu), and so he cuts away all obvious oecasion for the alteration through the summation of slight variations in one direction, eaeh bringing some advantage. This is a strongly-marked case; but its features, although unusually prominent, are like those of the general run of the considerations by which evolution is supposed to exclude design. Those of the penultimate citation and its context are all of the same stamp. The differences which begin as variatl.ons are said to be spontaneous-a metaphorical word of wide meanings-are inferred to be casual (whereas we only know them to be occult), or to be or. iginated by su. r- EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY. 385 rounding ag.e~cies (which is not in a just sense true); they are legitimately inferred to be led on by natural selection, wholly new structures or organs appear, no one can say how, certainly no one can show that they are necessary outcomes of what preceded; and these t~o are through n~tural selection kept in harmony w1th the surroundmgs, adapted to different ones diversified, and perfected; purposes are all along sub~ served . through exquisite adaptations; and yet the whole 1s thought to be undesigned, not because of any assigned reason why this or that must have been thus or so, but simply because they all occurred in Nature ! The Darwinian theory implies that the birth and development of a species are as natural as those of an individual, are facts of the same kind in a higher order. The aTieged proof of the absence of design from it amounts to a simple reiteration of the statement, with particulars. Now, the marks of contrivance in the structure of animals used not to be q~estioned because of their coming in the way of brrth and . development. It is curious that a further extension of this birth and development should be held to disprove them. It appears to us that all this is begging the question against design -in Nature, instead of proving that it may be dispensed with. Two things have helped on this confusion. One is the notion of the direct and independent creation of species, with only an ideal connection between them, to question which was thought to question the principle of design. The other is a wrong idea of the nature an¢1. province of natural selection. In former papers we have over and over explained the |