« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
woman is before the modern doctrines respecting her, and will survive them and determine her place and duties in society, how. ever for the time she may lose her true dignity and the respect which belongs to her by blindly striving against them. The family, too, is before civil government; and its constitutive idea, its organic unity, and its sacred interests, must not be sacrificed to it, or practically violated in blind obedience to a false theory of natural or individual rights.
ARTICLE IV.-TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW.
The trend of our time is eminently materialistic. Its thought has been directed by those advances which are the glory of the age. Chemistry, electricity, and above all, biology, have revolutionized the older science. Such rapid progress could not fail to leave idealism and the purely mental sciences in the background. Philosophy, save that which is naturalistic, no longer achieves her former successes with the people. The cry is for museums and lecture courses. The great popular mind bas become first attracted and then engrossed. More than to any other, this result is due to the investigation and writings of Charles Darwin.
Materialists there have been in every age, and in our own they have not failed to lay hold of the new science as a triumphant vindication of their philosophy. The boldness of the appropriation, the prestige of the claimants, the plausibility of their assertions carried the world by storm. Before the new truths were half realized, materialism cloaked the young science and henceforth seemed its natural robe. Commencing with the facts and inductions of science she passed, apparently without a break, to the inferences of philosophy, and landed the inquirer in the boggy syrtis of materialistic conclusions.
The chief claim of modern materialism is that recent science excludes from nature all possibility of the Christian's God. As part of this grand conclusion, teleology is swept from its ancient basis and the evidence by natural design to an intelligent, planning Creator is wholly wanting. That the friends of religion have regarded such claims as the teachings of science is much to be deplored. Science as well as religion needs vindication, and of theologians and men of science not a few bave protested against the union of materialism with evolution.
The aim of this paper is not to prove teleology or to defend organic evolution, but to examine the argument of design in the light of Development and determine to what extent, if at all, it is modified thereby. First is presented a résumé of Design, second, of Development, thirdly, the discussion.
THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.
This is not, as usually stated, from design to a Designer. Let the evidence of design be established, and since design can exist only in intelligence, the conclusion to an intelligent Designer is immediate and irresistible. The work of the teleologist is to substantiate in nature the evidence of design. His is not the argument of the cosmologist to prove the exist. ence of a First Cause from the universe as an effect. Nor is that part of teleology bere discussed which reasons from the harmony and order of the universe as a whole, known as the argument from order. As here used, teleology refers to the skill and contrivance perceived in the adaptations of nature. Mr. Darwin speaks of “beautiful contrivances” and “ marvelous adaptations.” Dr. Romanes, an earnest advocate of the theory of development, says: "Innumerable cases of adaptation of organisms to their environment are the observed facts for which an explanation is required."
Design concerns not the origination of matter but its use, not the materials or parts, but their relations, which achieve an end that the parts without arrangement could not accomplish. Strictly, design is not in the arrangement or adaptation, but in the Intelligence back of them and of which they are the evidence. Design, then, consists in adaptations, which appear to be the result of foresight and intention. As design actually exists only in mind, which is not open to observation even in our fellow men, our only way to arrive at such a conclusion is through external phenomena, indicating purpose.
To account for adaptations, final as well as efficient causes are required. In adaptations there is no doubt of efficient cause, but there is more than this the idea beforehand of the end to be attained. This existed before material means were invoked to realize that idea. Every phenomenon has its material, efficient cause, its reason how, and in each combination and adap. tation we seek these objective causes. But the mind is not satisfied in thus determining physical antecedents. In the human hand as an instrument, we are compelled to see more than physics and physiology. The reason how does not suffice to account for the eye. The larger factor remains unexplained
and leads us to inquire the reason why. We reply that the eye was made to see. This reason is needed to account for all phenomena that appear designed to accomplish definite results. The why, in distinction from the how, is named the mental, subjective, or final cause.
. Some object to this reason, saying that for cause it puts effect. It is not the effect, however, but the idea of that effect, which constitutes the final cause. This idea precedes, but does not supplant, efficient agency.
Efficient causes are the means which realize objectively what has first been ideally conceived, -just as man, before constructing a macbine to accomplish a purpose, has that purpose in mind. This determination of the present to the future is the distinctive element of finality. To explain any adaptation, truth requires a spiritual as well as material factor. The two causes are complementary and har. monious.
Design possesses the same basis of fact as the natural systems of organic science. Homology expresses the fact that in nature there are serial relations, correspondences in type of structure, an example of which is the unity of type exhibited in a fish's pectoral fin, a bird's wing, a dog's fore-leg, a man's arm. Because of his knowledge of ichthyic relations, Mr. Agassiz was enabled to delineate from a single part, correctly as it proved, the skeleton of the fish from which it was taken. The reconstruction from a single part shows mutual adaptations in every portion of the skeleton. Homology, or the study of relations, the basis of all comparative science, finds expression in natural classification, the statement of those relations. Though homologies are but relations they are facts as shown by the instance given. Although classification is but a statement of relations it is an accepted scientific principle,. a practical rule, a truth. Yet it is based only on the perception of relations.
If these systematic relations did not actually exist in nature, natural science would be impossible, since it is systematized knowledge.
Now it is on these very same relations, or adaptations of part to part-witness the case cited, -fitted to accomplish an end, which constitutes the induction of design. Resting on the same basis of natural relations are teleology and scientific systems, alike only perceiyable by intelligence and alike only
conceivable as the result of intelligent manifestations in those relations. Founded on this solid basis of actual relation in nature, Design is correctly termed by Mr. Mill, an inductive argument. As an induction is to be established like any other, by an appeal to the facts concerned, namely, adaptations.
Design is an induction, the value of which depends on the weight of evidence. Design cannot be demonstrated with mathematical certainty. The value of the induction from results which appear purposed depends on the weight of evidence. The presumption in any given case may be small or it may be great. The probability of design is increased by the repetition of results in an individual case, by the multiplication of cases producing like results, by specialization of structure, by uniqueness of function. The more complex and oft-repeated the adaptation of structure to function, instinct to action, species to environment, ihe greater the evidence of design, until at last it becomes a necessity of thought,-conviction like that which certifies to ideal, serial relations in geology and biology, and without which tbey would not be sciences but mere aggregations of facts. Probability lesser or greater, according to the ground of the induction, is the only support of scientific theories, and most departments of science considered thoroughly established, are only morally certain theories.
The human eye as an instrument for sight, with its supplementary parts, the complexity of the structure, the marvelous adjustments not only to an external medium, but between the several parts, from early time has been considered to present irrefragable evidence of design. Throughout nature countless adaptations roll up so great a body of evidence that the inducsion of design is not only unanswerable, but any other explanation, circumstances conşidered, is not conceivable. For in. stances in proof of design, reference is made to Paley, the Bridgewater treatises, and of recent works, to Janet and others. Some of Mr. Darwin's special works, as the Fertilization of Orchids, are capital cases in point. The force of the argument, the means for proving it, are within reach of all. Knowledge of processes is unessential since results—adaptations—are, and always have been, the facts from which the chiefest evidence is derived. The induction of design has commended itself to the common sense of all generations.