sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent physico-
mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict, every
one of these "chance" events.

A second very common objection to Mr. Darwin's views was (and
is), that they abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the argument
from design. It is nearly twenty years since I ventured to offer
some remarks on this subject, and as my arguments have as yet
received no refutation, I hope I may be excused for reproducing
them. I observed, "that the doctrine of Evolution is the most
formidable opponent of all the commoner and coarser forms of
Teleology. But perhaps the most remarkable service to the
Philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the
reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation
of the facts of both, which his views offer. The teleology which
supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the
higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it
exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses
it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a wider
teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but
is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution.
This proposition is that the whole world, living and not living,
is the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite
laws, of the forces (I should now like to substitute the word
powers for "forces.") possessed by the molecules of which the
primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be
true, it is no less certain that the existing world lay
potentially in the cosmic vapour, and that a sufficient
intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the