existence. And if the cat type has long persisted as we know it, the
interpretation of the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not that
the cats have remained invariable, but that such varieties as have
incessantly occurred have been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in
the world than the existing stock.

If we apprehend the spirit of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then,
nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it
is commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a
"Teleologist in the fullest sense of the word," we would deny that he
is a Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that,
apart from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most
remarkable service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of
Nature to recognise, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to
purpose which are so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology
has done good service in keeping before our minds, without being false
to the fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the
universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of
the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.

But leaving our own impressions of the 'Origin of Species,' and turning
to those passages especially cited by Professor Kolliker, we cannot
admit that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them. Darwin, if
we read him rightly, does 'not' affirm that every detail in the
structure of an animal has been created for its benefit. His words are
(p. 199):--

"The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately
made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every
detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor.