ic and universalistic finish. In Sec. 67-Sec. 70, he eliminates not only
the idea of design in individual cases, but also the idea of a design in
the world as a whole; allows us to speak of design in the world only in a
subjective sense, so far as we understand it to be what we think we
perceive as the common final aim of the concert of the powers, active in
the world; and finds, when in such a sense it is spoken of as design in the
world, that the universe reaches its end in every instance. Only the parts
develop themselves, driven by the mechanical laws of causality, and after
having lived {164} their period of life, sink back again into the universe,
in order to make place for new developments and to prepare them in their
turn.

For the view of the world which the antagonists of teleology construct out
of this "mechanical" and "causal" view, they, as we have repeatedly seen,
have invented the name "_monism_." In contrast to all dualism in reasoning
about the relation of body and soul, God and universe, time and eternity,
and especially in contrast to the dualism with which the theistic view of
the world is said to be loaded, monism claims that what was formerly
divided into God and universe, force and matter, matter and spirit, body
and soul, is but one; and it thus exhibits a reconciliation, a higher
unity, of materialism and idealism, of pantheism and atheism, which unity
in the scientific and the practical ethic realm has no antagonist to fight
more energetically, and none which it is better able to fight successfully,
than _dualism_, which the monistic view of the world, by a queer mistake as
to the theistic position of God in nature, especially considers the whole
theistic view of the world.

The scientific antagonists of teleology show such a scientific intolerance
against their own associates, that one of the latest exhibitors of
Darwinism, Oskar Schmidt, in his "Theory of Descent and Darwinism," bluntly
classes one of the greatest and most deserving investigators in the realm
of comparative anatomy and palaeontology, Richard Owen, of London, with the
"'Halves' who, fearing the conclusions, with one word come to terms with
the scientific conscience." And why?--because Owen still sees ends in
nature, and by his inclination to the acceptance of a descent, does not
allow himself to {165} be prevented from giving adhesion to a teleological
view of the world. And this invention of monism is proclaimed to the world