« VorigeDoorgaan »
losophers, than the result of habit; not of the habit or effort of a single pelican, or of a single race of pelicans, but of a habit perpetuated through a long series of generations. The pelican soon found the conveniency, of reserving in its mouth, when its appetite was glutted, the remainder of its prey, which is fish. The fullness produced by this attempt, of course stretched the skin which lies between the under chaps, as being the most yielding part of the mouth. Every distension increased the cavity. The original bird, and many generations which succeeded him, might find difficulty enough in making the pouch answer this purpose: but future pelicans, entering upon life with a pouch derived from their progenitors, of considerable capacity, would more readily accelerate its advance to persection, by frequently pressing down the fac with the weight of fish which it might now be made to contain.
These, or of this kind, are the analogies relied upon. Now in the first place, the instances themselves are unauthenticated by testimony; and, in theory, to fay the least of them, open to great objections. Who ever read of camels without bunches, or with bunches less than those with which they are at 2 H 3 present present usually formed? A bunch, not unlike the camel's, is found between the shoulders of the buffalo; of the origin of which it is impossible to give the account which is here given. In the second example; Why should the application of water, which appears to promote and thicken the growth of feathers upon the bodies and breasts of geese and swans and other water fowls, have divested of this covering the thighs of cranes? The third instance, which appears to me as plausible as any that can be produced, has this against it, that it is a singularity restricted to the species; whereas, if it had its commencement in the cause and manner which have been assigned, the like conformation might be expected to take place in other birds, which fed upon fish. How comes it to pass, that the pelican alone was the inventress, and her descendants the only inheritors, of this curious resource?
But it is the less necessary to contravert the instances themselves, as it is a straining of analogy beyond all limits of reason and credibility, to assert that birds, and beasts, and sale, with all their variety and complexity of organization, have been brought into their forms, and distinguished into their several kinds and natures, tures, by the same process (even if that process could be demonstrated, or had ever been actually noticed) as might seem to serve for the gradual generation of a camel's bunch, or a pelican's pouch.
, The solution, when applied to the works of nature generally, is contradicted by many of the phænomena, and totally inadequate to others. The ligaments or strictures, by which the tendons are tied down at the angles of the joints, could, by no possibility, be formed by the motion or exercise of the tendons themselves; by any appetency exciting these parts into action; or by any tendency arising therefrom. The tendency is all the other way: the conatus in constant opposition to them. Length of time does not help the case at all, but the reverse. The valves also in the bloodvessels, could never be formed in the manner, which our theorist proposes. The blood, in its right and natural course, has no tendency to form them. When obstructed or refluent, it has the contrary. These parts could not grow out of their use, though they had eternity to grow in.
The fenses of animals appear to me altogether incapable of receiving the explanation of „ 2 H 4 their their origin which this theory affords. Including under the word "sense" the organ and the perception, we have no account of either. How will our philosopher get at vijoin, or make an eye? How should the blind animal affect fight, of which blind animals, we know, have neither conception nor desire? Affecting it, by what operation of its will, by what endeavour to see, could it so determine the fluids of its body, as to inchoate the formation of an eye? or, suppose the eye formed, would the perception follow? The fame of the other senses. And this objection holds its force, ascribe what you will to the hand of time, to the power of habit, to changes, too flow to be observed by man, or brought within any comparison which he is able to make of past things with the present: concede what you please to these arbitrary and unattested suppositions, how will they help you I Here is no inception. No laws, no course, no powers of nature which prevail at present, nor any analogous to these, could give commencement to a new sense. And it is in vain to enquire, how that might proceed, wrtich could never begin.
I think the senses, to be the most inconsistent sntent with the hypothesis before us, of any part of the animal frame. But other parts are sufficiently so. The solution does not apply to the parts of animals, which have little in them of motion. If we could suppose joints and muscles to be gradually formed by action and exercise, what action or exercise could form a skull, or fill it with brains? No effort of the animal could determine the clothing of its skin. What conatus could give prickles to the porcupine or hedgehog, or to the sheep its fleece?
In the last place; What do these appetencies mean when applied to plants? I" am not able to give a signification to the term, which can be transferred from animals to plants; or which is common to both. Yet a no less successful organization is found in plants, than what obtains in animals. A solution is wanted for one, as well as the other.
Upon the whole; after all the struggles of a reluctant philosophy the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a de. signer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God.