AsecondverycommonobjectiontoMr。Darwin’sviewswas（andis），thattheyabolishTeleology，andevisceratetheargumentfromdesign。ItisnearlytwentyyearssinceIventuredtooffersomeremarksonthissubject，andasmyargumentshaveasyetreceivednorefutation，IhopeImaybeexcusedforreproducingthem。Iobserved，\"thatthedoctrineofEvolutionisthemostformidableopponentofallthecommonerandcoarserformsofTeleology。ButperhapsthemostremarkableservicetothePhilosophyofBiologyrenderedbyMr。DarwinisthereconciliationofTeleologyandMorphology，andtheexplanationofthefactsofboth，whichhisviewsoffer。Theteleologywhichsupposesthattheeye，suchasweseeitinman，oroneofthehighervertebrata，wasmadewiththeprecisestructureitexhibits，forthepurposeofenablingtheanimalwhichpossessesittosee，hasundoubtedlyreceiveditsdeath—blow。Nevertheless，itisnecessarytorememberthatthereisawiderteleologywhichisnottouchedbythedoctrineofEvolution，butisactuallybaseduponthefundamentalpropositionofEvolution。Thispropositionisthatthewholeworld，livingandnotliving，istheresultofthemutualinteraction，accordingtodefinitelaws，oftheforces（Ishouldnowliketosubstitutethewordpowersfor\"forces。\"）possessedbythemoleculesofwhichtheprimitivenebulosityoftheuniversewascomposed。Ifthisbetrue，itisnolesscertainthattheexistingworldlaypotentiallyinthecosmicvapour，andthatasufficientintelligencecould，fromaknowledgeofthepropertiesofthemoleculesofthatvapour，havepredicted，saythestateofthefaunaofBritainin1869，withasmuchcertaintyasonecansaywhatwillhappentothevapourofthebreathonacoldwinter’sday……Theteleologicalandthemechanicalviewsofnaturearenot，necessarily，mutuallyexclusive。Onthecontrary，themorepurelyamechanistthespeculatoris，themorefirmlydoesheassumeaprimordialmoleculararrangementofwhichallthephenomenaoftheuniversearetheconsequences，andthemorecompletelyishetherebyatthemercyoftheteleologist，whocanalwaysdefyhimtodisprovethatthisprimordialmoleculararrangementwasnotintendedtoevolvethephenomenaoftheuniverse。\"（The\"GenealogyofAnimals\"（’TheAcademy，’1869），reprintedin’CritiquesandAddresses。’）
TheacutechampionofTeleology，Paley，sawnodifficultyinadmittingthatthe\"productionofthings\"maybetheresultoftrainsofmechanicaldispositionsfixedbeforehandbyintelligentappointmentandkeptinactionbyapoweratthecentre（’NaturalTheology，’chapterxxiii。），thatistosay，heprolepticallyacceptedthemoderndoctrineofEvolution;andhissuccessorsmightdowelltofollowtheirleader，oratanyratetoattendtohisweightyreasonings，beforerushingintoanantagonismwhichhasnoreasonablefoundation。
Havinggotridofthebeliefinchanceandthedisbeliefindesign，asinnosenseappurtenancesofEvolution，thethirdlibeluponthatdoctrine，thatitisanti—theistic，mightperhapsbelefttoshiftforitself。Butthepersistencewithwhichmanypeoplerefusetodrawtheplainestconsequencesfromthepropositionstheyprofesstoaccept，rendersitadvisabletoremarkthatthedoctrineofEvolutionisneitherAnti—theisticnorTheistic。ItsimplyhasnomoretodowithTheismthanthefirstbookofEuclidhas。Itisquitecertainthatanormalfresh—laideggcontainsneithercocknorhen;anditisalsoascertainasanypropositioninphysicsormorals，thatifsuchaneggiskeptunderproperconditionsforthreeweeks，acockorhenchickenwillbefoundinit。Itisalsoquitecertainthatiftheshellweretransparentweshouldbeabletowatchtheformationoftheyoungfowl，daybyday，byaprocessofevolution，fromamicroscopiccellulargermtoitsfullsizeandcomplicationofstructure。
ThereforeEvolution，inthestrictestsense，isactuallygoingoninthisandanalogousmillionsandmillionsofinstances，whereverlivingcreaturesexist。Therefore，toborrowanargumentfromButler，asthatwhichnowhappensmustbeconsistentwiththeattributesoftheDeity，ifsuchaBeingexists，Evolutionmustbeconsistentwiththoseattributes。And，ifso，theevolutionoftheuniverse，whichisneithermorenorlessexplicablethanthatofachicken，mustalsobeconsistentwiththem。ThedoctrineofEvolution，therefore，doesnotevencomeintocontactwithTheism，consideredasaphilosophicaldoctrine。Thatwithwhichitdoescollide，andwithwhichitisabsolutelyinconsistent，istheconceptionofcreation，whichtheologicalspeculatorshavebaseduponthehistorynarratedintheopeningofthebookofGenesis。
Thereisagreatdealoftalkandnotalittlelamentationabouttheso—