{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2089/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2089","id":"gutenberg_2089","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2089","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On the origin of species","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"Produced by Sue Asscher.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nON THE RECEPTION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES'\n\n\nby\n\nPROFESSOR THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY\n\n\n\nFROM THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN\n\nEDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN\n\n\n\nON THE RECEPTION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'\n\nTo the present generation, that is to say, the people a few years on\nthe hither and thither side of thirty, the name of Charles Darwin\nstands alongside of those of Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday; and,\nlike them, calls up the grand ideal of a searcher after truth and\ninterpreter of Nature.  They think of him who bore it as a rare\ncombination of genius, industry, and unswerving veracity, who earned\nhis place among the most famous men of the age by sheer native power,\nin the teeth of a gale of popular prejudice, and uncheered by a sign of\nfavour or appreciation from the official fountains of honour; as one\nwho in spite of an acute sensitiveness to praise and blame, and\nnotwithstanding provocations which might have excused any outbreak,\nkept himself clear of all envy, hatred, and malice, nor dealt otherwise\nthan fairly and justly with the unfairness and injustice which was\nshowered upon him; while, to the end of his days, he was ready to\nlisten with patience and respect to the most insignificant of\nreasonable objectors.\n\nAnd with respect to that theory of the origin of the forms of life\npeopling our globe, with which Darwin's name is bound up as closely as\nthat of Newton with the theory of gravitation, nothing seems to be\nfurther from the mind of the present generation than any attempt to\nsmother it with ridicule or to crush it by vehemence of denunciation.\n\"The struggle for existence,\" and \"Natural selection,\" have become\nhousehold words and every-day conceptions.  The reality and the\nimportance of the natural processes on which Darwin founds his\ndeductions are no more doubted than those of growth and multiplication;\nand, whether the full potency attributed to them is admitted or not, no\none doubts their vast and far-reaching significance.  Wherever the\nbiological sciences are studied, the 'Origin of Species' lights the\npaths of the investigator; wherever they are taught it permeates the\ncourse of instruction.  Nor has the influence of Darwinian ideas been\nless profound, beyond the realms of Biology. The oldest of all\nphilosophies, that of Evolution, was bound hand and foot and cast into\nutter darkness during the millennium of theological scholasticism.  But\nDarwin poured new life-blood into the ancient frame; the bonds burst,\nand the revivified thought of ancient Greece has proved itself to be a\nmore adequate expression of the universal order of things than any of\nthe schemes which have been accepted by the credulity and welcomed by\nthe superstition of seventy later generations of men.\n\nTo any one who studies the signs of the times, the emergence of the\nphilosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of\nthe world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped,\nforgotten things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth\ncentury.  But the most effective weapons of the modern champions of\nEvolution were fabricated by Darwin; and the 'Origin of Species' has\nenlisted a formidable body of combatants, trained in the severe school\nof Physical Science, whose ears might have long remained deaf to the\nspeculations of a priori philosophers.\n\nI do not think any candid or instructed person will deny the truth of\nthat which has just been asserted.  He may hate the very name of\nEvolution, and may deny its pretensions as vehemently as a Jacobite\ndenied those of George the Second.  But there it is--not only as\nsolidly seated as the Hanoverian dynasty, but happily independent of\nParliamentary sanction--and the dullest antagonists have come to see\nthat they have to deal with an adversary whose bones are to be broken\nby no amount of bad words.\n\nEven the theologians have almost ceased to pit the plain meaning of\nGenesis against the no less plain meaning of Nature.  Their more\ncandid, or more cautious, representatives have given up dealing with\nEvolution as if it were a damnable heresy, and have taken refuge in one\nof two courses.  Either they deny that Genesis was meant to teach\nscientific truth, and thus save the veracity of the record at the\nexpense of its authority; or they expend their energies in devising the\ncruel ingenuities of the reconciler, and torture texts in the vain hope\nof making them confess the creed of Science.  But when the peine forte\net dure is over, the antique sincerity of the venerable sufferer always\nreasserts itself.  Genesis is honest to the core, and professes to be\nno more than it is, a repository of venerable traditions of unknown\norigin, claiming no scientific authority and possessing none.\n\nAs my pen finishes these passages, I can but be amused to think what a\nterrible hubbub would have been made (in truth was made) about any\nsimilar expressions of opinion a quarter of a century ago.  In fact,\nthe contrast between the present condition of public opinion upon the\nDarwinian question; between the estimation in which Darwin's views are\nnow held in the scientific world; between the acquiescence, or at least\nquiescence, of the theologians of the self-respecting order at the\npresent day and the outburst of antagonism on all sides in 1858-9, when\nthe new theory respecting the origin of species first became known to\nthe older generation to which I belong, is so startling that, except\nfor documentary evidence, I should be sometimes inclined to think my\nmemories dreams.  I have a great respect for the younger generation\nmyself (they can write our lives, and ravel out all our follies, if\nthey choose to take the trouble, by and by), and I should be glad to be\nassured that the feeling is reciprocal; but I am afraid that the story\nof our dealings with Darwin may prove a great hindrance to that\nveneration for our wisdom which I should like them to display.  We have\nnot even the excuse that, thirty years ago, Mr. Darwin was an obscure\nnovice, who had no claims on our attention.  On the contrary, his\nremarkable zoological and geological investigations had long given him\nan assured position among the most eminent and original investigators\nof the day; while his charming 'Voyage of a Naturalist' had justly\nearned him a wide-spread reputation among the general public.  I doubt\nif there was any man then living who had a better right to expect that\nanything he might choose to say on such a question as the Origin of\nSpecies would be listened to with profound attention, and discussed\nwith respect; and there was certainly no man whose personal character\nshould have afforded a better safeguard against attacks, instinct with\nmalignity and spiced with shameless impertinences.\n\nYet such was the portion of one of the kindest and truest men that it\nwas ever my good fortune to know; and years had to pass away before\nmisrepresentation, ridicule, and denunciation, ceased to be the most\nnotable constituents of the majority of the multitudinous criticisms of\nhis work which poured from the press. I am loth to rake any of these\nancient scandals from their well-deserved oblivion; but I must make\ngood a statement which may seem overcharged to the present generation,\nand there is no piece justificative more apt for the purpose, or more\nworthy of such dishonour, than the article in the 'Quarterly Review'\nfor July, 1860.  (I was not aware when I wrote these passages that the\nauthorship of the article had been publicly acknowledged. Confession\nunaccompanied by penitence, however, affords no ground for mitigation\nof judgment; and the kindliness with which Mr. Darwin speaks of his\nassailant, Bishop Wilberforce (vol. ii.), is so striking an\nexemplification of his singular gentleness and modesty, that it rather\nincreases one's indignation against the presumption of his critic.)\nSince Lord Brougham assailed Dr. Young, the world has seen no such\nspecimen of the insolence of a shallow pretender to a Master in Science\nas this remarkable production, in which one of the most exact of\nobservers, most cautious of reasoners, and most candid of expositors,\nof this or any other age, is held up to scorn as a \"flighty\" person,\nwho endeavours \"to prop up his utterly rotten fabric of guess and\nspeculation,\" and whose \"mode of dealing with nature\" is reprobated as\n\"utterly dishonourable to Natural Science.\"  And all this high and\nmighty talk, which would have been indecent in one of Mr. Darwin's\nequals, proceeds from a writer whose want of intelligence, or of\nconscience, or of both, is so great, that, by way of an objection to\nMr. Darwin's views, he can ask, \"Is it credible that all favourable\nvarieties of turnips are tending to become men;\" who is so ignorant of\npaleontology, that he can talk of the \"flowers and fruits\" of the\nplants of the carboniferous epoch; of comparative anatomy, that he can\ngravely affirm the poison apparatus of the venomous snakes to be\n\"entirely separate from the ordinary laws of animal life, and peculiar\nto themselves;\" of the rudiments of physiology, that he can ask, \"what\nadvantage of life could alter the shape of the corpuscles into which\nthe blood can be evaporated?\"  Nor does the reviewer fail to flavour\nthis outpouring of preposterous incapacity with a little stimulation of\nthe odium theologicum.  Some inkling of the history of the conflicts\nbetween Astronomy, Geology, and Theology, leads him to keep a retreat\nopen by the proviso that he cannot \"consent to test the truth of\nNatural Science by the word of Revelation;\" but, for all that, he\ndevotes pages to the exposition of his conviction that Mr. Darwin's\ntheory \"contradicts the revealed relation of the creation to its\nCreator,\" and is \"inconsistent with the fulness of his glory.\"\n\nIf I confine my retrospect of the reception of the 'Origin of Species'\nto a twelvemonth, or thereabouts, from the time of its publication, I\ndo not recollect anything quite so foolish and unmannerly as the\n'Quarterly Review' article, unless, perhaps, the address of a Reverend\nProfessor to the Dublin Geological Society might enter into competition\nwith it.  But a large proportion of Mr. Darwin's critics had a\nlamentable resemblance to the 'Quarterly' reviewer, in so far as they\nlacked either the will, or the wit, to make themselves masters of his\ndoctrine; hardly any possessed the knowledge required to follow him\nthrough the immense range of biological and geological science which\nthe 'Origin' covered; while, too commonly, they had prejudiced the case\non theological grounds, and, as seems to be inevitable when this\nhappens, eked out lack of reason by superfluity of railing.\n\nBut it will be more pleasant and more profitable to consider those\ncriticisms, which were acknowledged by writers of scientific authority,\nor which bore internal evidence of the greater or less competency and,\noften, of the good faith, of their authors.  Restricting my survey to a\ntwelvemonth, or thereabouts, after the publication of the 'Origin,' I\nfind among such critics Louis Agassiz (\"The arguments presented by\nDarwin in favor of a universal derivation from one primary form of all\nthe peculiarities existing now among living beings have not made the\nslightest impression on my mind.\"\n\n\"Until the facts of Nature are shown to have been mistaken by those who\nhave collected them, and that they have a different meaning from that\nnow generally assigned to them, I shall therefore consider the\ntransmutation theory as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts,\nunscientific in its method, and mischievous in its\ntendency.\"--Silliman's 'Journal,' July, 1860, pages 143, 154.  Extract\nfrom the 3rd volume of 'Contributions to the Natural History of the\nUnited States.'); Murray, an excellent entomologist; Harvey, a botanist\nof considerable repute; and the author of an article in the 'Edinburgh\nReview,' all strongly adverse to Darwin.  Pictet, the distinguished and\nwidely learned paleontogist of Geneva, treats Mr. Darwin with a respect\nwhich forms a grateful contrast to the tone of some of the preceding\nwriters, but consents to go with him only a very little way.  (\"I see\nno serious objections to the formation of varieties by natural\nselection in the existing world, and that, so far as earlier epochs are\nconcerned, this law may be assumed to explain the origin of closely\nallied species, supposing for this purpose a very long period of time.\"\n\n\"With regard to simple varieties and closely allied species, I believe\nthat Mr. Darwin's theory may explain many things, and throw a great\nlight upon numerous questions.\"--'Sur l'Origine de l'Espece.  Par\nCharles Darwin.'  'Archives des Sc. de la Bibliotheque Universelle de\nGeneve,' pages 242, 243, Mars 1860.) On the other hand, Lyell, up to\nthat time a pillar of the anti-transmutationists (who regarded him,\never afterwards, as Pallas Athene may have looked at Dian, after the\nEndymion affair), declared himself a Darwinian, though not without\nputting in a serious caveat.  Nevertheless, he was a tower of strength,\nand his courageous stand for truth as against consistency, did him\ninfinite honour.  As evolutionists, sans phrase, I do not call to mind\namong the biologists more than Asa Gray, who fought the battle\nsplendidly in the United States; Hooker, who was no less vigorous here;\nthe present Sir John Lubbock and myself.  Wallace was far away in the\nMalay Archipelago; but, apart from his direct share in the promulgation\nof the theory of natural selection, no enumeration of the influences at\nwork, at the time I am speaking of, would be complete without the\nmention of his powerful essay 'On the Law which has regulated the\nIntroduction of New Species,' which was published in 1855.  On reading\nit afresh, I have been astonished to recollect how small was the\nimpression it made.\n\nIn France, the influence of Elie de Beaumont and of Flourens--the\nformer of whom is said to have \"damned himself to everlasting fame\" by\ninventing the nickname of \"la science moussante\" for Evolutionism (One\nis reminded of the effect of another small academic epigram.  The\nso-called vertebral theory of the skull is said to have been nipped in\nthe bud in France by the whisper of an academician to his neighbour,\nthat, in that case, one's head was a \"vertebre pensante.\"),--to say\nnothing of the ill-will of other powerful members of the Institut,\nproduced for a long time the effect of a conspiracy of silence; and\nmany years passed before the Academy redeemed itself from the reproach\nthat the name of Darwin was not to be found on the list of its members.\nHowever, an accomplished writer, out of the range of academical\ninfluences, M. Laugel, gave an excellent and appreciative notice of the\n'Origin' in the 'Revue des Deux Mondes.'  Germany took time to\nconsider; Bronn produced a slightly Bowdlerized translation of the\n'Origin'; and 'Kladderadatsch' cut his jokes upon the ape origin of\nman; but I do not call to mind that any scientific notability declared\nhimself publicly in 1860. (However, the man who stands next to Darwin\nin his influence on modern biologists, K.E. von Baer, wrote to me, in\nAugust 1860, expressing his general assent to evolutionist views.  His\nphrase, \"J'ai enonce les memes idees...que M. Darwin\" (volume ii.) is\nshown by his subsequent writings to mean no more than this.) None of us\ndreamed that, in the course of a few years, the strength (and perhaps I\nmay add the weakness) of \"Darwinismus\" would have its most extensive\nand most brilliant illustrations in the land of learning.  If a\nforeigner may presume to speculate on the cause of this curious\ninterval of silence, I fancy it was that one moiety of the German\nbiologists were orthodox at any price, and the other moiety as\ndistinctly heterodox.  The latter were evolutionists, a priori,\nalready, and they must have felt the disgust natural to deductive\nphilosophers at being offered an inductive and experimental foundation\nfor a conviction which they had reached by a shorter cut.  It is\nundoubtedly trying to learn that, though your conclusions may be all\nright, your reasons for them are all wrong, or, at any rate,\ninsufficient.\n\nOn the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860 were\nnumerically extremely insignificant.  There is not the slightest doubt\nthat, if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at\nthat time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.\nAnd there is as little doubt that, if such a council gathered now, the\ndecree would be of an exactly contrary nature.  It would indicate a\nlack of sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that\ngeneration less capacity or less honesty than their successors possess.\nWhat, then, are the causes which led instructed and fair-judging men of\nthat day to arrive at a judgment so different from that which seems\njust and fair to those who follow them? That is really one of the most\ninteresting of all questions connected with the history of science, and\nI shall try to answer it.  I am afraid that in order to do so I must\nrun the risk of appearing egotistical.  However, if I tell my own story\nit is only because I know it better than that of other people.\n\nI think I must have read the 'Vestiges' before I left England in 1846;\nbut, if I did, the book made very little impression upon me, and I was\nnot brought into serious contact with the 'Species' question until\nafter 1850.  At that time, I had long done with the Pentateuchal\ncosmogony, which had been impressed upon my childish understanding as\nDivine truth, with all the authority of parents and instructors, and\nfrom which it had cost me many a struggle to get free.  But my mind was\nunbiassed in respect of any doctrine which presented itself, if it\nprofessed to be based on purely philosophical and scientific reasoning.\nIt seemed to me then (as it does now) that \"creation,\" in the ordinary\nsense of the word, is perfectly conceivable.  I find no difficulty in\nimagining that, at some former period, this universe was not in\nexistence; and that it made its appearance in six days (or\ninstantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition\nof some pre-existent Being.  Then, as now, the so-called a priori\narguments against Theism; and, given a Deity, against the possibility\nof creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.\nI had not then, and I have not now, the smallest a priori objection to\nraise to the account of the creation of animals and plants given in\n'Paradise Lost,' in which Milton so vividly embodies the natural sense\nof Genesis.  Far be it from me to say that it is untrue because it is\nimpossible.  I confine myself to what must be regarded as a modest and\nreasonable request for some particle of evidence that the existing\nspecies of animals and plants did originate in that way, as a condition\nof my belief in a statement which appears to me to be highly improbable.\n\nAnd, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to\ngive to the evolutionists of 1851-8.  Within the ranks of the\nbiologists, at that time, I met with nobody, except Dr. Grant, of\nUniversity College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and his\nadvocacy was not calculated to advance the cause.  Outside these ranks,\nthe only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelled\nrespect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist,\nwas Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose acquaintance I made, I think, in 1852,\nand then entered into the bonds of a friendship which, I am happy to\nthink, has known no interruption.  Many and prolonged were the battles\nwe fought on this topic.  But even my friend's rare dialectic skill and\ncopiousness of apt illustration could not drive me from my agnostic\nposition.  I took my stand upon two grounds:  firstly, that up to that\ntime, the evidence in favour of transmutation was wholly insufficient;\nand secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the\ntransmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to\nexplain the phenomena.  Looking back at the state of knowledge at that\ntime, I really do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable.\n\nIn those days I had never even heard of Treviranus' 'Biologie.'\nHowever, I had studied Lamarck attentively and I had read the\n'Vestiges' with due care; but neither of them afforded me any good\nground for changing my negative and critical attitude.  As for the\n'Vestiges,' I confess that the book simply irritated me by the\nprodigious ignorance and thoroughly unscientific habit of mind\nmanifested by the writer.  If it had any influence on me at all, it set\nme against Evolution; and the only review I ever have qualms of\nconscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on\nthe 'Vestiges' while under that influence.\n\nWith respect to the 'Philosophie Zoologique,' it is no reproach to\nLamarck to say that the discussion of the Species question in that\nwork, whatever might be said for it in 1809, was miserably below the\nlevel of the knowledge of half a century later.  In that interval of\ntime the elucidation of the structure of the lower animals and plants\nhad given rise to wholly new conceptions of their relations; histology\nand embryology, in the modern sense, had been created; physiology had\nbeen reconstituted; the facts of distribution, geological and\ngeographical, had been prodigiously multiplied and reduced to order.\nTo any biologist whose studies had carried him beyond mere\nspecies-mongering in 1850, one-half of Lamarck's arguments were\nobsolete and the other half erroneous, or defective, in virtue of\nomitting to deal with the various classes of evidence which had been\nbrought to light since his time.  Moreover his one suggestion as to the\ncause of the gradual modification of species--effort excited by change\nof conditions--was, on the face of it, inapplicable to the whole\nvegetable world.  I do not think that any impartial judge who reads the\n'Philosophie Zoologique' now, and who afterwards takes up Lyell's\ntrenchant and effectual criticism (published as far back as 1830), will\nbe disposed to allot to Lamarck a much higher place in the\nestablishment of biological evolution than that which Bacon assigns to\nhimself in relation to physical science generally,--buccinator tantum.\n(Erasmus Darwin first promulgated Lamarck's fundamental conceptions,\nand, with greater logical consistency, he had applied them to plants.\nBut the advocates of his claims have failed to show that he, in any\nrespect, anticipated the central idea of the 'Origin of Species.')\n\nBut, by a curious irony of fate, the same influence which led me to put\nas little faith in modern speculations on this subject, as in the\nvenerable traditions recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis, was\nperhaps more potent than any other in keeping alive a sort of pious\nconviction that Evolution, after all, would turn out true.  I have\nrecently read afresh the first edition of the 'Principles of Geology';\nand when I consider that this remarkable book had been nearly thirty\nyears in everybody's hands, and that it brings home to any reader of\nordinary intelligence a great principle and a great fact--the\nprinciple, that the past must be explained by the present, unless good\ncause be shown to the contrary; and the fact, that, so far as our\nknowledge of the past history of life on our globe goes, no such cause\ncan be shown (The same principle and the same fact guide the result\nfrom all sound historical investigation.  Grote's 'History of Greece'\nis a product of the same intellectual movement as Lyell's\n'Principles.')--I cannot but believe that Lyell, for others, as for\nmyself, was the chief agent for smoothing the road for Darwin.  For\nconsistent uniformitarianism postulates evolution as much in the\norganic as in the inorganic world.  The origin of a new species by\nother than ordinary agencies would be a vastly greater \"catastrophe\"\nthan any of those which Lyell successfully eliminated from sober\ngeological speculation.\n\nIn fact, no one was better aware of this than Lyell himself. (Lyell,\nwith perfect right, claims this position for himself.  He speaks of\nhaving \"advocated a law of continuity even in the organic world, so far\nas possible without adopting Lamarck's theory of transmutation\"...\n\n\"But while I taught that as often as certain forms of animals and\nplants disappeared, for reasons quite intelligible to us, others took\ntheir place by virtue of a causation which was beyond our\ncomprehension; it remained for Darwin to accumulate proof that there is\nno break between the incoming and the outgoing species, that they are\nthe work of evolution, and not of special creation...\n\n\"I had certainly prepared the way in this country, in six editions of\nmy work before the 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1842 [1844], for\nthe reception of Darwin's gradual and insensible evolution of\nspecies.\"--'Life and Letters,' Letter to Haeckel, volume ii. page 436.\nNovember 23, 1868.)  If one reads any of the earlier editions of the\n'Principles' carefully (especially by the light of the interesting\nseries of letters recently published by Sir Charles Lyell's\nbiographer), it is easy to see that, with all his energetic opposition\nto Lamarck, on the one hand, and to the ideal quasi-progressionism of\nAgassiz, on the other, Lyell, in his own mind, was strongly disposed to\naccount for the origination of all past and present species of living\nthings by natural causes.  But he would have liked, at the same time,\nto keep the name of creation for a natural process which he imagined to\nbe incomprehensible.\n\nIn a letter addressed to Mantell (dated March 2, 1827), Lyell speaks of\nhaving just read Lamarck; he expresses his delight at Lamarck's\ntheories, and his personal freedom from any objection based on\ntheological grounds.  And though he is evidently alarmed at the\npithecoid origin of man involved in Lamarck's doctrine, he observes:--\n\n\"But, after all, what changes species may really undergo!  How\nimpossible will it be to distinguish and lay down a line, beyond which\nsome of the so-called extinct species have never passed into recent\nones.\"\n\nAgain, the following remarkable passage occurs in the postscript of a\nletter addressed to Sir John Herschel in 1836:--\n\n\"In regard to the origination of new species, I am very glad to find\nthat you think it probable that it may be carried on through the\nintervention of intermediate causes.  I left this rather to be\ninferred, not thinking it worth while to offend a certain class of\npersons by embodying in words what would only be a speculation.\"  (In\nthe same sense, see the letter to Whewell, March 7, 1837, volume ii.,\npage 5:--\n\n\"In regard to this last subject [the changes from one set of animal and\nvegetable species to another]...you remember what Herschel said in his\nletter to me.  If I had stated as plainly as he has done the\npossibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a\nnatural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have\nraised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed\nat every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on\nthese mysterious subjects.\"  See also letter to Sedgwick, January 12,\n1838 ii. page 35.)  He goes on to refer to the criticisms which have\nbeen directed against him on the ground that, by leaving species to be\noriginated by miracle, he is inconsistent with his own doctrine of\nuniformitarianism; and he leaves it to be understood that he had not\nreplied, on the ground of his general objection to controversy.\n\nLyell's contemporaries were not without some inkling of his esoteric\ndoctrine.  Whewell's 'History of the Inductive Sciences,' whatever its\nphilosophical value, is always worth reading and always interesting, if\nunder no other aspect than that of an evidence of the speculative\nlimits within which a highly-placed divine might, at that time, safely\nrange at will. In the course of his discussion of uniformitarianism,\nthe encyclopaedic Master of Trinity observes:--\n\n\"Mr. Lyell, indeed, has spoken of an hypothesis that 'the successive\ncreation of species may constitute a regular part of the economy of\nnature,' but he has nowhere, I think, so described this process as to\nmake it appear in what department of science we are to place the\nhypothesis.  Are these new species created by the production, at long\nintervals, of an offspring different in species from the parents?  Or\nare the species so created produced without parents?  Are they\ngradually evolved from some embryo substance?  Or do they suddenly\nstart from the ground, as in the creation of the poet?...\n\n\"Some selection of one of these forms of the hypothesis, rather than\nthe others, with evidence for the selection, is requisite to entitle us\nto place it among the known causes of change, which in this chapter we\nare considering.  The bare conviction that a creation of species has\ntaken place, whether once or many times, so long as it is unconnected\nwith our organical sciences, is a tenet of Natural Theology rather than\nof Physical Philosophy.\" (Whewell's 'History,' volume iii. page 639-640\n(Edition 2, 1847.))\n\nThe earlier part of this criticism appears perfectly just and\nappropriate; but, from the concluding paragraph, Whewell evidently\nimagines that by \"creation\" Lyell means a preternatural intervention of\nthe Deity; whereas the letter to Herschel shows that, in his own mind,\nLyell meant natural causation; and I see no reason to doubt (The\nfollowing passages in Lyell's letters appear to me decisive on this\npoint:--\n\nTo Darwin, October 3, 1859 (ii, 325), on first reading the 'Origin.'\n\n\"I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that\nyou claim in your concluding pages will follow.\n\n\"It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the\ncase of Man and his Races, and of other animals, and that of plants, is\none and the same, and that if a vera causa be admitted for one instant,\n[instead] of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word\n'creation,' all the consequences must follow.\"\n\nTo Darwin, March 15, 1863 (volume ii. page 365).\n\n\"I remember that it was the conclusion he [Lamarck] came to about man\nthat fortified me thirty years ago against the great impression which\nhis arguments at first made on my mind, all the greater because\nConstant Prevost, a pupil of Cuvier's forty years ago, told me his\nconviction 'that Cuvier thought species not real, but that science\ncould not advance without assuming that they were so.'\"\n\nTo Hooker, March 9, 1863 (volume ii. page 361), in reference to\nDarwin's feeling about the 'Antiquity of Man.'\n\n\"He [Darwin] seems much disappointed that I do not go farther with him,\nor do not speak out more.  I can only say that I have spoken out to the\nfull extent of my present convictions, and even beyond my state of\nFEELING as to man's unbroken descent from the brutes, and I find I am\nhalf converting not a few who were in arms against Darwin, and are even\nnow against Huxley.\"  He speaks of having had to abandon \"old and long\ncherished ideas, which constituted the charm to me of the theoretical\npart of the science in my earlier day, when I believed with Pascal in\nthe theory, as Hallam terms it, of 'the arch-angel ruined.'\"\n\nSee the same sentiment in the letter to Darwin, March 11, 1863, page\n363:--\n\n\"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much required as ever, but of\ncourse it takes a new form if Lamarck's views improved by yours are\nadopted.\") that, if Sir Charles could have avoided the inevitable\ncorollary of the pithecoid origin of man--for which, to the end of his\nlife, he entertained a profound antipathy--he would have advocated the\nefficiency of causes now in operation to bring about the condition of\nthe organic world, as stoutly as he championed that doctrine in\nreference to inorganic nature.\n\nThe fact is, that a discerning eye might have seen that some form or\nother of the doctrine of transmutation was inevitable, from the time\nwhen the truth enunciated by William Smith that successive strata are\ncharacterised by different kinds of fossil remains, became a firmly\nestablished law of nature.  No one has set forth the speculative\nconsequences of this generalisation better than the historian of the\n'Inductive Sciences':--\n\n\"But the study of geology opens to us the spectacle of many groups of\nspecies which have, in the course of the earth's history, succeeded\neach other at vast intervals of time; one set of animals and plants\ndisappearing, as it would seem, from the face of our planet, and\nothers, which did not before exist, becoming the only occupants of the\nglobe.  And the dilemma then presents itself to us anew:--either we\nmust accept the doctrine of the transmutation of species, and must\nsuppose that the organized species of one geological epoch were\ntransmuted into those of another by some long-continued agency of\nnatural causes; or else, we must believe in many successive acts of\ncreation and extinction of species, out of the common course of nature;\nacts which, therefore, we may properly call miraculous.\"  (Whewell's\n'History of the Inductive Sciences.'  Edition ii., 1847, volume iii.\npages 624-625.  See for the author's verdict, pages 638-39.)\n\nDr. Whewell decides in favour of the latter conclusion.  And if any one\nhad plied him with the four questions which he puts to Lyell in the\npassage already cited, all that can be said now is that he would\ncertainly have rejected the first.  But would he really have had the\ncourage to say that a Rhinoceros tichorhinus, for instance, \"was\nproduced without parents;\" or was \"evolved from some embryo substance;\"\nor that it suddenly started from the ground like Milton's lion \"pawing\nto get free his hinder parts.\" I permit myself to doubt whether even\nthe Master of Trinity's well-tried courage--physical, intellectual, and\nmoral--would have been equal to this feat.  No doubt the sudden\nconcurrence of half-a-ton of inorganic molecules into a live rhinoceros\nis conceivable, and therefore may be possible.  But does such an event\nlie sufficiently within the bounds of probability to justify the belief\nin its occurrence on the strength of any attainable, or, indeed,\nimaginable, evidence?\n\nIn view of the assertion (often repeated in the early days of the\nopposition to Darwin) that he had added nothing to Lamarck, it is very\ninteresting to observe that the possibility of a fifth alternative, in\naddition to the four he has stated, has not dawned upon Dr. Whewell's\nmind.  The suggestion that new species may result from the selective\naction of external conditions upon the variations from their specific\ntype which individuals present--and which we call \"spontaneous,\"\nbecause we are ignorant of their causation--is as wholly unknown to the\nhistorian of scientific ideas as it was to biological specialists\nbefore 1858. But that suggestion is the central idea of the 'Origin of\nSpecies,' and contains the quintessence of Darwinism.\n\nThus, looking back into the past, it seems to me that my own position\nof critical expectancy was just and reasonable, and must have been\ntaken up, on the same grounds, by many other persons. If Agassiz told\nme that the forms of life which had successively tenanted the globe\nwere the incarnations of successive thoughts of the Deity; and that he\nhad wiped out one set of these embodiments by an appalling geological\ncatastrophe as soon as His ideas took a more advanced shape, I found\nmyself not only unable to admit the accuracy of the deductions from the\nfacts of paleontology, upon which this astounding hypothesis was\nfounded, but I had to confess my want of any means of testing the\ncorrectness of his explanation of them.  And besides that, I could by\nno means see what the explanation explained.  Neither did it help me to\nbe told by an eminent anatomist that species had succeeded one another\nin time, in virtue of \"a continuously operative creational law.\"  That\nseemed to me to be no more than saying that species had succeeded one\nanother, in the form of a vote-catching resolution, with \"law\" to\nplease the man of science, and \"creational\" to draw the orthodox.  So I\ntook refuge in that \"thatige Skepsis\" which Goethe has so well defined;\nand, reversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I\nusually defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had\nto do with the transmutationists; and stood up for the possibility of\ntransmutation among the orthodox--thereby, no doubt, increasing an\nalready current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless\ncombativeness.\n\nI remember, in the course of my first interview with Mr. Darwin,\nexpressing my belief in the sharpness of the lines of demarcation\nbetween natural groups and in the absence of transitional forms, with\nall the confidence of youth and imperfect knowledge.  I was not aware,\nat that time, that he had then been many years brooding over the\nspecies-question; and the humorous smile which accompanied his gentle\nanswer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled\nme.  But it would seem that four or five years' hard work had enabled\nme to understand what it meant; for Lyell ('Life and Letters,' volume\nii. page 212.), writing to Sir Charles Bunbury (under date of April 30,\n1856), says:--\n\n\"When Huxley, Hooker, and Wollaston were at Darwin's last week they\n(all four of them) ran a tilt against species--further, I believe, than\nthey are prepared to go.\"\n\nI recollect nothing of this beyond the fact of meeting Mr. Wollaston;\nand except for Sir Charles' distinct assurance as to \"all four,\" I\nshould have thought my \"outrecuidance\" was probably a counterblast to\nWollaston's conservatism.  With regard to Hooker, he was already, like\nVoltaire's Habbakuk, \"capable du tout\" in the way of advocating\nEvolution.\n\nAs I have already said, I imagine that most of those of my\ncontemporaries who thought seriously about the matter, were very much\nin my own state of mind--inclined to say to both Mosaists and\nEvolutionists, \"a plague on both your houses!\" and disposed to turn\naside from an interminable and apparently fruitless discussion, to\nlabour in the fertile fields of ascertainable fact.  And I may,\ntherefore, further suppose that the publication of the Darwin and\nWallace papers in 1858, and still more that of the 'Origin' in 1859,\nhad the effect upon them of the flash of light, which to a man who has\nlost himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, whether it\ntakes him straight home or not, certainly goes his way.  That which we\nwere looking for, and could not find, was a hypothesis respecting the\norigin of known organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes\nbut such as could be proved to be actually at work.  We wanted, not to\npin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to get hold of\nclear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with\nfacts and have their validity tested.  The 'Origin' provided us with\nthe working hypothesis we sought. Moreover, it did the immense service\nof freeing us for ever from the dilemma--refuse to accept the creation\nhypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted by any\ncautious reasoner?  In 1857, I had no answer ready, and I do not think\nthat any one else had.  A year later, we reproached ourselves with\ndullness for being perplexed by such an inquiry.  My reflection, when I\nfirst made myself master of the central idea of the 'Origin,' was, \"How\nextremely stupid not to have thought of that!\"  I suppose that\nColumbus' companions said much the same when he made the egg stand on\nend.  The facts of variability, of the struggle for existence, of\nadaptation to conditions, were notorious enough; but none of us had\nsuspected that the road to the heart of the species problem lay through\nthem, until Darwin and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the\nbeacon-fire of the 'Origin' guided the benighted.\n\nWhether the particular shape which the doctrine of evolution, as\napplied to the organic world, took in Darwin's hands, would prove to be\nfinal or not, was, to me, a matter of indifference.  In my earliest\ncriticisms of the 'Origin' I ventured to point out that its logical\nfoundation was insecure so long as experiments in selective breeding\nhad not produced varieties which were more or less infertile; and that\ninsecurity remains up to the present time.  But, with any and every\ncritical doubt which my sceptical ingenuity could suggest, the\nDarwinian hypothesis remained incomparably more probable than the\ncreation hypothesis.  And if we had none of us been able to discern the\nparamount significance of some of the most patent and notorious of\nnatural facts, until they were, so to speak, thrust under our noses,\nwhat force remained in the dilemma--creation or nothing?  It was\nobvious that, hereafter, the probability would be immensely greater,\nthat the links of natural causation were hidden from our purblind eyes,\nthan that natural causation should be incompetent to produce all the\nphenomena of nature.  The only rational course for those who had no\nother object than the attainment of truth, was to accept \"Darwinism\" as\na working hypothesis, and see what could be made of it.  Either it\nwould prove its capacity to elucidate the facts of organic life, or it\nwould break down under the strain.  This was surely the dictate of\ncommon sense; and, for once, common sense carried the day.  The result\nhas been that complete volte-face of the whole scientific world, which\nmust seem so surprising to the present generation.  I do not mean to\nsay that all the leaders of biological science have avowed themselves\nDarwinians; but I do not think that there is a single zoologist, or\nbotanist, or palaeontologist, among the multitude of active workers of\nthis generation, who is other than an evolutionist, profoundly\ninfluenced by Darwin's views.  Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the\nparticular theory put forth by Darwin, I venture to affirm that, so far\nas my knowledge goes, all the ingenuity and all the learning of hostile\ncritics have not enabled them to adduce a solitary fact, of which it\ncan be said, this is irreconcilable with the Darwinian theory.  In the\nprodigious variety and complexity of organic nature, there are\nmultitudes of phenomena which are not deducible from any\ngeneralisations we have yet reached.  But the same may be said of every\nother class of natural objects.  I believe that astronomers cannot yet\nget the moon's motions into perfect accordance with the theory of\ngravitation.\n\nIt would be inappropriate, even if it were possible, to discuss the\ndifficulties and unresolved problems which have hitherto met the\nevolutionist, and which will probably continue to puzzle him for\ngenerations to come, in the course of this brief history of the\nreception of Mr. Darwin's great work.  But there are two or three\nobjections of a more general character, based, or supposed to be based,\nupon philosophical and theological foundations, which were loudly\nexpressed in the early days of the Darwinian controversy, and which,\nthough they have been answered over and over again, crop up now and\nthen to the present day.\n\nThe most singular of these, perhaps immortal, fallacies, which live on,\nTithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted them, is that\nwhich charges Mr. Darwin with having attempted to reinstate the old\npagan goddess, Chance.  It is said that he supposes variations to come\nabout \"by chance,\" and that the fittest survive the \"chances\" of the\nstruggle for existence, and thus \"chance\" is substituted for\nprovidential design.\n\nIt is not a little wonderful that such an accusation as this should be\nbrought against a writer who has, over and over again, warned his\nreaders that when he uses the word \"spontaneous,\" he merely means that\nhe is ignorant of the cause of that which is so termed; and whose whole\ntheory crumbles to pieces if the uniformity and regularity of natural\ncausation for illimitable past ages is denied.  But probably the best\nanswer to those who talk of Darwinism meaning the reign of \"chance,\" is\nto ask them what they themselves understand by \"chance\"?  Do they\nbelieve that anything in this universe happens without reason or\nwithout a cause?  Do they really conceive that any event has no cause,\nand could not have been predicted by any one who had a sufficient\ninsight into the order of Nature?  If they do, it is they who are the\ninheritors of antique superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have\nnever been illumined by a ray of scientific thought. The one act of\nfaith in the convert to science, is the confession of the universality\nof order and of the absolute validity in all times and under all\ncircumstances, of the law of causation.  This confession is an act of\nfaith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such\npropositions is not susceptible of proof. But such faith is not blind,\nbut reasonable; because it is invariably confirmed by experience, and\nconstitutes the sole trustworthy foundation for all action.\n\nIf one of these people, in whom the chance-worship of our remoter\nancestors thus strangely survives, should be within reach of the sea\nwhen a heavy gale is blowing, let him betake himself to the shore and\nwatch the scene.  Let him note the infinite variety of form and size of\nthe tossing waves out at sea; or of the curves of their foam-crested\nbreakers, as they dash against the rocks; let him listen to the roar\nand scream of the shingle as it is cast up and torn down the beach; or\nlook at the flakes of foam as they drive hither and thither before the\nwind; or note the play of colours, which answers a gleam of sunshine as\nit falls upon the myriad bubbles.  Surely here, if anywhere, he will\nsay that chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered\nthe very penetralia of his divinity.  But the man of science knows that\nhere, as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not a\ncurve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a\nrainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary consequence\nof the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a sufficient knowledge\nof the conditions, competent physico-mathematical skill could account\nfor, and indeed predict, every one of these \"chance\" events.\n\nA second very common objection to Mr. Darwin's views was (and is), that\nthey abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the argument from design.  It is\nnearly twenty years since I ventured to offer some remarks on this\nsubject, and as my arguments have as yet received no refutation, I hope\nI may be excused for reproducing them.  I observed, \"that the doctrine\nof Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all the commoner and\ncoarser forms of Teleology.  But perhaps the most remarkable service to\nthe Philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation\nof Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both,\nwhich his views offer.  The teleology which supposes that the eye, such\nas we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the\nprecise structure it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal\nwhich possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow.\nNevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a wider\nteleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is\nactually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution. This\nproposition is that the whole world, living and not living, is the\nresult of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the\nforces (I should now like to substitute the word powers for \"forces.\")\npossessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the\nuniverse was composed.  If this be true, it is no less certain that the\nexisting world lay potentially in the cosmic vapour, and that a\nsufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of\nthe molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of the\nfauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what\nwill happen to the vapour of the breath on a cold winter's day...\n\n...The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not,\nnecessarily, mutually exclusive.  On the contrary, the more purely a\nmechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a\nprimordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the\nuniverse are the consequences, and the more completely is he thereby at\nthe mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that\nthis primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the\nphenomena of the universe.\"  (The \"Genealogy of Animals\" ('The\nAcademy,' 1869), reprinted in 'Critiques and Addresses.')\n\nThe acute champion of Teleology, Paley, saw no difficulty in admitting\nthat the \"production of things\" may be the result of trains of\nmechanical dispositions fixed beforehand by intelligent appointment and\nkept in action by a power at the centre ('Natural Theology,' chapter\nxxiii.), that is to say, he proleptically accepted the modern doctrine\nof Evolution; and his successors might do well to follow their leader,\nor at any rate to attend to his weighty reasonings, before rushing into\nan antagonism which has no reasonable foundation.\n\nHaving got rid of the belief in chance and the disbelief in design, as\nin no sense appurtenances of Evolution, the third libel upon that\ndoctrine, that it is anti-theistic, might perhaps be left to shift for\nitself.  But the persistence with which many people refuse to draw the\nplainest consequences from the propositions they profess to accept,\nrenders it advisable to remark that the doctrine of Evolution is\nneither Anti-theistic nor Theistic.  It simply has no more to do with\nTheism than the first book of Euclid has.  It is quite certain that a\nnormal fresh-laid egg contains neither cock nor hen; and it is also as\ncertain as any proposition in physics or morals, that if such an egg is\nkept under proper conditions for three weeks, a cock or hen chicken\nwill be found in it.  It is also quite certain that if the shell were\ntransparent we should be able to watch the formation of the young fowl,\nday by day, by a process of evolution, from a microscopic cellular germ\nto its full size and complication of structure.  Therefore Evolution,\nin the strictest sense, is actually going on in this and analogous\nmillions and millions of instances, wherever living creatures exist.\nTherefore, to borrow an argument from Butler, as that which now happens\nmust be consistent with the attributes of the Deity, if such a Being\nexists, Evolution must be consistent with those attributes.  And, if\nso, the evolution of the universe, which is neither more nor less\nexplicable than that of a chicken, must also be consistent with them.\nThe doctrine of Evolution, therefore, does not even come into contact\nwith Theism, considered as a philosophical doctrine.  That with which\nit does collide, and with which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the\nconception of creation, which theological speculators have based upon\nthe history narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis.\n\nThere is a great deal of talk and not a little lamentation about the\nso-called religious difficulties which physical science has created.\nIn theological science, as a matter of fact, it has created none.  Not\na solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist, at the\npresent day, which has not existed from the time that philosophers\nbegan to think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of\nTheism.  All the real or imaginary perplexities which flow from the\nconception of the universe as a determinate mechanism, are equally\ninvolved in the assumption of an Eternal, Omnipotent and Omniscient\nDeity.  The theological equivalent of the scientific conception of\norder is Providence; and the doctrine of determinism follows as surely\nfrom the attributes of foreknowledge assumed by the theologian, as from\nthe universality of natural causation assumed by the man of science.\nThe angels in 'Paradise Lost' would have found the task of enlightening\nAdam upon the mysteries of \"Fate, Foreknowledge, and Free-will,\" not a\nwhit more difficult, if their pupil had been educated in a\n\"Real-schule\" and trained in every laboratory of a modern university.\nIn respect of the great problems of Philosophy, the post-Darwinian\ngeneration is, in one sense, exactly where the prae-Darwinian\ngenerations were.  They remain insoluble.  But the present generation\nhas the advantage of being better provided with the means of freeing\nitself from the tyranny of certain sham solutions.\n\nThe known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on\nan islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.  Our\nbusiness in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add\nsomething to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.  And even\na cursory glance at the history of the biological sciences during the\nlast quarter of a century is sufficient to justify the assertion, that\nthe most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural\nknowledge which has come into men's hands, since the publication of\nNewton's 'Principia,' is Darwin's 'Origin of Species.'\n\nIt was badly received by the generation to which it was first\naddressed, and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which it gave rise\nis sad to think upon.  But the present generation will probably behave\njust as badly if another Darwin should arise, and inflict upon them\nthat which the generality of mankind most hate--the necessity of\nrevising their convictions.  Let them, then, be charitable to us\nancients; and if they behave no better than the men of my day to some\nnew benefactor, let them recollect that, after all, our wrath did not\ncome to much, and vented itself chiefly in the bad language of\nsanctimonious scolds.  Let them as speedily perform a strategic\nright-about-face, and follow the truth wherever it leads.  The\nopponents of the new truth will discover, as those of Darwin are doing,\nthat, after all, theories do not alter facts, and that the universe\nremains unaffected even though texts crumble.  Or, it may be, that, as\nhistory repeats itself, their happy ingenuity will also discover that\nthe new wine is exactly of the same vintage as the old, and that\n(rightly viewed) the old bottles prove to have been expressly made for\nholding it.","title":"On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species'","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9162}