essays on life, art and science-第25章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


shuffling　of　cards；　or　the　throwing　of　dice　without　the　play；　and
this　will　never　stand。

According　to　the　older　men；　cards　did　indeed　count　for　much；　but
play　counted　for　more。　　They　denied　the　teleology　of　the　timethat
is　to　say；　the　teleology　that　saw　all　adaptation　to　surroundings　as
part　of　a　plan　devised　long　ages　since　by　a　quasi…anthropomorphic
being　who　schemed　everything　out　much　as　a　man　would　do；　but　on　an
infinitely　vaster　scale。　　This　conception　they　found　repugnant　alike
to　intelligence　and　conscience；　but；　though　they　do　not　seem　to　have
perceived　it；　they　left　the　door　open　for　a　design　more　true　and
more　demonstrable　than　that　which　they　excluded。　　By　making　their
variations　mainly　due　to　effort　and　intelligence；　they　made　organic
development　run　on　all…fours　with　human　progress；　and　with
inventions　which　we　have　watched　growing　up　from　small　beginnings。
They　made　the　development　of　man　from　the　amoeba　part　and　parcel　of
the　story　that　may　be　read；　though　on　an　infinitely　smaller　scale；
in　the　development　of　our　most　powerful　marine　engines　from　the
common　kettle；　or　of　our　finest　microscopes　from　the　dew…drop。

The　development　of　the　steam…engine　and　the　microscope　is　due　to
intelligence　and　design；　which　did　indeed　utilise　chance
suggestions；　but　which　improved　on　these；　and　directed　each　step　of
their　accumulation；　though　never　foreseeing　more　than　a　step　or　two
ahead；　and　often　not　so　much　as　this。　　The　fact；　as　I　have　elsewhere
urged；　that　the　man　who　made　the　first　kettle　did　not　foresee　the
engines　of　the　Great　Eastern；　or　that　he　who　first　noted　the
magnifying　power　of　the　dew…drop　had　no　conception　of　our　present
microscopesthe　very　limited　amount；　in　fact；　of　design　and
intelligence　that　was　called　into　play　at　any　one　pointthis　does
not　make　us　deny　that　the　steam…engine　and　microscope　owe　their
development　to　design。　　If　each　step　of　the　road　was　designed；　the
whole　journey　was　designed；　though　the　particular　end　was　not
designed　when　the　journey　was　begun。　　And　so　is　it；　according　to　the
older　view　of　evolution；　with　the　development　of　those　living
organs；　or　machines；　that　are　born　with　us；　as　part　of　the
perambulating　carpenter's　chest　we　call　our　bodies。　　The　older　view
gives　us　our　design；　and　gives　us　our　evolution　too。　　If　it　refuses
to　see　a　quasi…anthropomorphic　God　modelling　each　species　from
without　as　a　potter　models　clay；　it　gives　us　God　as　vivifying　and
indwelling　in　all　His　creaturesHe　in　them；　and　they　in　Him。　　If　it
refuses　to　see　God　outside　the　universe；　it　equally　refuses　to　see
any　part　of　the　universe　as　outside　God。　　If　it　makes　the　universe
the　body　of　God；　it　also　makes　God　the　soul　of　the　universe。　　The
question　at　issue；　then；　between　the　Darwinism　of　Erasmus　Darwin　and
the　neo…Darwinism　of　his　grandson；　is　not　a　personal　one；　nor
anything　like　a　personal　one。　　It　not　only　involves　the　existence　of
evolution；　but　it　affects　the　view　we　take　of　life　and　things　in　an
endless　variety　of　most　interesting　and　important　ways。　　It　is
imperative；　therefore；　on　those　who　take　any　interest　in　these
matters；　to　place　side　by　side　in　the　clearest　contrast　the　views　of
those　who　refer　the　evolution　of　species　mainly　to　accumulation　of
variations　that　have　no　other　inception　than　chance；　and　of　that
older　school　which　makes　design　perceive　and　develop　still　further
the　goods　that　chance　provides。

But　over　and　above　this；　which　would　be　in　itself　sufficient；　the
historical　mode　of　studying　any　question　is　the　only　one　which　will
enable　us　to　comprehend　it　effectually。　　The　personal　element　cannot
be　eliminated　from　the　consideration　of　works　written　by　living
persons　for　living　persons。　　We　want　to　know　who　is　whowhom　we　can
depend　upon　to　have　no　other　end　than　the　making　things　clear　to
himself　and　his　readers；　and　whom　we　should　mistrust　as　having　an
ulterior　aim　on　which　he　is　more　intent　than　on　the　furthering　of
our　better　understanding。　　We　want　to　know　who　is　doing　his　best　to
help　us；　and　who　is　only　trying　to　make　us　help　him；　or　to　bolster
up　the　system　in　which　his　interests　are　vested。　　There　is　nothing
that　will　throw　more　light　upon　these　points　than　the　way　in　which　a
man　behaves　towards　those　who　have　worked　in　the　same　field　with
himself；　and；　again；　than　his　style。　　A　man's　style；　as　Buffon　long
since　said；　is　the　man　himself。　　By　style；　I　do　not；　of　course；　mean
grammar　or　rhetoric；　but　that　style　of　which　Buffon　again　said　that
it　is　like　happiness；　and　vient　de　la　douceur　de　l'ame。　　When　we
find　a　man　concealing　worse　than　nullity　of　meaning　under　sentences
that　sound　plausibly　enough；　we　should　distrust　him　much　as　we
should　a　fellow…traveller　whom　we　caught　trying　to　steal　our　watch。
We　often　cannot　judge　of　the　truth　or　falsehood　of　facts　for
ourselves；　but　we　most　of　us　know　enough　of　human　nature　to　be　able
to　tell　a　good　witness　from　a　bad　one。

However　this　may　be；　and　whatever　we　may　think　of　judging　systems　by
the　directness　or　indirectness　of　those　who　advance　them；
biologists；　having　committed　themselves　too　rashly；　would　have　been
more　than　human　if　they　had　not　shown　some　pique　towards　those　who
dared　to　say；　first；　that　the　theory　of　Messrs。　Darwin　and　Wallace
was　unworkable；　and　secondly；　that　even　though　it　were　workable　it
would　not　justify　either　of　them　in　claiming　evolution。　　When
biologists　show　pique　at　all　they　generally　show　a　good　deal　of
pique；　but　pique　or　no　pique；　they　shunned　Mr。　Spencer's　objection
above　referred　to　with　a　persistency　more　unanimous　and　obstinate
than　I　ever　remember　to　have　seen　displayed　even　by　professional
truth…seekers。　　I　find　no　rejoinder　to　it　from　Mr。　Darwin　himself；
between　1865　when　it　was　first　put　forward；　and　1882　when　Mr。　Darwin
died。　　It　has　been　similarly　〃ostrichised〃　by　all　the　leading
apologists　of　Darwinism；　so　far　at　least　as　I　have　been　able　to
observe；　and　I　have　followed　the　matter　closely　for　many　years。　　Mr。
Spencer　has　repeated　and　amplified　it　in　his　recent　work；　〃The
Factors　of　Organic　Evolution；〃　but　it　still　remains　without　so　much
as　an　attempt　at　serious　answer；　for　the　perfunctory　and　illusory
remarks　of　Mr。　Wallace　at　the　end　of　his　〃Darwinism〃　cannot　be
counted　as　such。　　The　best　proof　of　its　irresistible　weight　is　that
Mr。　Darwin；　though　maintaining　silence　in　respect　to　it；　retreated
from　his　original　position　in　the　direction　that　would　most　obviate
Mr。　Spencer's　objection。

Yet　this　objection　has　been　repeatedly　urged　by　the　more　prominent
anti…Charles…Darwinian　authorities；　and　there　is　no　sign　that　the
British　public　is　becoming　less　rigorous　in　requiring　people　either
to　reply　to　objections　repeatedly　urged　by　men　of　even　moderate
weight；　or　to　let　judgment　go　by　default。　　As　regards　Mr。　Darwin's
claim　to　the　theory　of　evolution　generally；　Darwinians　are　beginning
now　to　perceive　that　this　cannot　be　admitted；　and　either　say　with
some　hardihood　that　Mr。　Darwin　never　claimed　it；　or　after　a　few
saving　clauses　to　the　effect　that　this　theory　refers　only　to　the
particular　means　by　which　evolution　has　been　brought　about；　imply
forthwith　thereafter　none　the　less　that　evolution　is　Mr。　Darwin's
theory。　　Mr。　Wallace　has　done　this　repeatedly　in　his　recent
〃Darwinism。〃　　Indeed；　I　should　be　by　no　means　sure　that　on　the　first
page　of　his　preface；　in　the　passage　about　〃Darwin's　theory；〃　which　I
have　already　somewhat　severely　criticised；　he　was　not　intending
evolution　by　〃Darwin's　theory；〃　if　in　his　preceding　paragraph　he　had
not　so　clearly　shown　that　he　knew　evolution　to　be　a　theory　of
greatly　older　date　than　Mr。　Darwin's。

The　history　of　sciencewell　exemplified　by　that　of　the　development
theoryis　the　history　of　eminent　men　who　have　fought　against　light
and　have　been　worsted。　　The　tenacity　with　which　Darwinians　stick　to
their　accumulation　of　fortuitous　variations　is　on　a　par　with　the
like　tenacity　shown　by　the　illustrious　Cuvier；　who　did　his　best　to
crush　evolution　altogether。　　It　always　has　been　thus；　and　always
will　be；　nor　is　it　desirable　in　the　interests　of　Truth　herself　that
it　should　be　otherwise。　　Truth　is　like　moneylightly　come；　lightly
go；　and　if　she　cannot　hold　her　own　against　even　gross
misrepresentation；　she　is　herself　not　worth　holding。
Misrepresentation　in　the　long　run　makes　Truth　as　much　as　it　mars
her；　hence　our　law　courts　do　not　think　it　desirable　that　pleaders
should　speak　their　bona　fide　opinions；　much　less　that　they　should
profess　to　do　so。　　Rather　let　each　side　hoodwink　judge　and　jury　as
best　it　can；　and　let　truth　flash　out　from　collision　of　defence　and
accusation。　　When　either　side　will　not　collide；　it　is　an　axiom　of
controversy　that　it　desires　to　prevent　the　truth　from　being
elicited。

Let　us　now　note　the　courses　forced　upon　biologists　by　the
difficulties　of　Mr。　Darwin's　distinctive　feature。　　Mr。　Darwin　and
Mr。　Wallace；　as　is　well　known；　brought　the　feature　forward
simultaneously　and　independently　of　one　another；　but　Mr。　Wallace
always　believed　in　it　more　firmly　than　Mr。　Darwin　did。　　Mr。　Darwin
as　a　young　man　did　not　believe　in　it。　　He　wrote　before　1889；
〃Nature；　by　making　habit　omnipotent　and　its　effects　hereditary；　has
fitted　the　Fuegian　for　the　climate　and　productions　of　his　country；〃
｛21｝　a　sentence　than　which　nothing　can　coincide　more　fully　with　the
older　view　that　use　and　disuse　were　the　main　purveyors　of
variations；　or　conflict　more　fatally　with　his　own　subsequent
distinctive　feature。　　Moreover；　as　I　showed　in　my　last　work　on
evolution；　｛22｝　in　the　peroration　to　his　〃Origin　of　Species；〃　he
discarded　his　accidental　variations　altogether；　and　fell　back　on　the
older　theory；　so　that　the　body　of　the　〃Origin　of　Species〃　supports
one　theory；　and　the　peroration　another　that　differs　from　it　toto
caelo。　　Finally；　in　his　later　editions；　he　retreated　indefinitely
from　his　original　position；　edging　always　more　and　more　continually
towards　the　theory　of　his　grandfather　and　Lamarck。　　These　facts
convince　me　that　he　was　at　no　time　a　thorough…going　Darwinian；　but
was　throughout　an　unconscious　Lamarckian；　though　ever　anxious　to
conceal　the　fact　alike　from　himself　and　from　his　readers。

Not　so　with　Mr。　Wallace；　who　was　both　more　outspoken　in　the　first
instance；　and　who　has　persevered　along　the　path　of　Wallaceism　just
as　Mr。　Darwin　with　greater　sagacity　was　ever　on　the　retreat　from
Darwinism。　　Mr。　Wallace's　profounder　faith　led　him　in　the　outset　to
place　his　theory　in　fuller　daylight　than　Mr。　Darwin　was　inclined　to
do。　　Mr。　Darwin　just　waved　Lamarck　aside；　and　said　as　little　about
him　as　he　could；　while　in　his　earlier　editions　Erasmus　Darwin　and
Buffon　were　not　so　much　as　named。　　Mr。　Wallace；　on　the　contrary；　at
once　raised　the　Lamarckian　spectre；　and　declared　it　exorcised。　　He
said　the　Lamarckian　hypothesis　was　〃quite　unnecessary。〃　　The　giraffe
did　not　〃acquire　its　long　neck　by　desiring　to　reach　the　foliage　of
the　more　lofty　shrubs；　and　constantly　stretching　its　neck　for　this
purpose；　but　because　any　varieties　which　occurred　among　its
antitypes　with　a　longer　neck　than　usual　at　once　secured　a　fresh
range　of　pasture　over　the　same　ground　as　their　shorter…necked
companions；　and　on　the　first　scarcity　of　food　were　thus　enable