{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_21019/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_21019","id":"gutenberg_21019","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21019","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Natural selection"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Jamie Atiga and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.ne\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_AT THE DEATHBED OF DARWINISM_\n\n\n\nA SERIES OF PAPERS\n\nBy\n\nE. DENNERT, Ph.D.\n\n\n\nAuthorized Translation\n\nBy E. V. O'HARRA and JOHN H. PESCHGES\n\n\n\n1904\nGERMAN LITERARY BOARD\nBurlington, Iowa\n\n\nCopyright 1904\nBy R. NEUMANN\n\n\n\n\n_CONTENTS_\n\n\nPREFACE                                                             9\n\nINTRODUCTION                                                       27\n\nCHAPTER I.--The Return to Wigand--The Botanist, Julius von\nSachs--The Vienna Zoologist, Dr. Schneider                         35\n\nCHAPTER II.--Professor Goethe on \"The Present Status of\nDarwinism\"--Explains the Reluctance of certain men of\nScience to Discard Darwinism                                       41\n\nCHAPTER III.--Professor Korchinsky Rejects Darwinism--His\nTheory of Heterogenesis--Professor Haberlandt of\nGraz--Demonstration of a \"Vital Force\"--Its Nature--The\nSudden Origination of a New Organ--Importance of the\nExperiment.                                                        49\n\nCHAPTER IV.--Testimony of a Palaeontologist, Professor\nSteinmann--On Haeckel's Family Trees--The Principle of\nMultiple Origin--Extinction of the Saurians--\"Darwinism Not\nthe Alpha and Omega of the Doctrine of Descent\"--Steinmann's\nConclusions                                                        60\n\nCHAPTER V.--Eimer's Theory of Organic Growth--Definite Lines\nof Development--Rejects Darwin's Theory of Fluctuating\nVariations--Opposes Weismann--Repudiates Darwinian\n\"Mimicry\"--Discards the \"Romantic\" Hypothesis of Sexual\nSelection--\"Transmutation is a Physiological Process, a\nPhyletic Growth\"                                                   69\n\nCHAPTER VI.--Admissions of a Darwinian--Professor von\nWagner's Explanation of the Decay of Darwinism--Darwinism\nRejects the Inductive Method, Hence Unscientific--Wagner's\nContradictory Assertions                                           90\n\nCHAPTER VII.--Haeckel's Latest Production--His Extreme\nModesty--Reception of the Weltraetsel--Schmidt's\nApologia--The Romanes Incident--Men of Science Who Convicted\nHaeckel of Deliberate Fraud                                       104\n\nCHAPTER VIII.--Grottewitz Writes on \"Darwinian Myths\"--Darwinism\nIncapable of Scientific Proof--\"The Principle of Gradual\nDevelopment Certainly Untenable\"--\"Darwin's Theory of\n\"Chance\" a Myth\"                                                  118\n\nCHAPTER IX.--Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen--Doctrine of\nDescent Not Substantiated--Missing Links--\"Collapse of Haeckel's\nTheory\"--Descent Hypothesis \"Antiquated\"--Fleischmann Formerly\na Darwinian--Haeckel's Disreputable Methods of Defense            124\n\nCHAPTER X.--Hertwig, the Berlin Anatomist, Protests Against\nthe Materialistic View of Life\"--No Empiric Proof of\nDarwinism--\"The Impotence of Natural Selection\"--Rejects\nHaeckel's \"Biogenetic Law\"                                        137\n\nCONCLUSION.--Darwinism Abandoned by Men of Science--Supplanted\nby a Theory in Harmony With Theistic Principles                   146\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe general tendency of recent scientific literature dealing with the\nproblem of organic evolution may fairly be characterized as distinctly\nand prevailingly unfavorable to the Darwinian theory of Natural\nSelection. In the series of chapters herewith offered for the first\ntime to English readers, Dr. Dennert has brought together testimonies\nwhich leave no room for doubt about the decadence of the Darwinian\ntheory in the highest scientific circles in Germany. And outside of\nGermany the same sentiment is shared generally by the leaders of\nscientific thought. That the popularizers of evolutionary conceptions\nhave any anti-Darwinian tendencies cannot, of course, be for a moment\nmaintained. For who would undertake to popularize what is not novel or\nstriking? But a study of the best scientific literature reveals the\nfact that the attitude assumed by one of our foremost American\nzoologists, Professor Thomas Hunt Morgan, in his recent work on\n\"Evolution and Adaptation,\" is far more general among the leading men\nof science than is popularly supposed. Professor Morgan's position may\nbe stated thus: He adheres to the general theory of Descent, i.e., he\nbelieves the simplest explanation which has yet been offered of the\nstructural _similarities_ between species within the same group,\nis the hypothesis of a common descent from a parent species. But he\nemphatically rejects the notion--and this is the quintessence of\nDarwinism--that the _dissimilarities_ between species have been\nbrought about by the purely mechanical agency of natural selection.\n\nTo find out what, precisely, Darwin meant by the term \"natural\nselection\" let us turn for a moment, to his great work, _The Origin\nof Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In the second chapter of\nthat work, Darwin observes that small \"fortuitous\" variations in\nindividual organisms, though of small interest to the systematist, are\nof the \"highest importance\" for his theory, since these minute\nvariations often confer on the possessor of them, some advantage over\nhis fellows in the quest for the necessaries of life. Thus these chance\nindividual variations become the \"first steps\" towards slight\nvarieties, which, in turn, lead to sub-species, and, finally, to\nspecies. Varieties, in fact, are \"incipient species.\" Hence, small\n\"fortuitous\" fluctuating, individual variations--i.e., those which\nchance to occur without predetermined direction--are the \"first-steps\"\nin the origin of species. This is the first element in the Darwinian\ntheory.\n\nIn the third chapter of the same work we read: \"It has been seen in the\nlast chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is\nsome individual variability. * * * But the mere existence of individual\nvariability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as\na _foundation_ of the work, helps us but little in understanding\nhow species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations\nof one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions\nof life, and of one organic being to another being, been perfected?\n* * *\" Again it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have\ncalled incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and\ndistinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other\nfar more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups\nof species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise?\nAll of these results follow from the _struggle for life_. Owing to\nthis struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause\nproceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a\nspecies, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings,\nand to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation\nof such individuals and will generally be inherited by the offspring.\nThe offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving, for of\nthe many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a\nsmall number can survive. I have called this principle by which each\nslight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term, \"natural\nselection.\" Mr. Darwin adds that his meaning would be more accurately\nexpressed by a phrase of Mr. Spencer's coinage, \"Survival of the\nFittest.\"\n\nIt may be observed that neither \"natural selection\" nor \"survival of\nthe fittest\" gives very accurate expression to the idea which Darwin\nseems to wish to convey. Natural selection is at best a metaphorical\ndescription of a process, and \"survival of the fittest\" describes the\nresult of that process. Nor shall we find the moving principle of\nevolution in individual variability unless we choose to regard chance\nas an efficient agency. Consequently, the only efficient principle\nconceivably connected with the process is the \"struggle for existence;\"\nand even this has only a purely negative function in the origination of\nspecies or of adaptations. For, the \"surviving fittest\" owe nothing\nmore to the struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans owe to\nthe death-dealing bullets which did _not_ hit them. Mr. Darwin has,\nhowever, obviated all difficulty regarding precision of terms by the\nremark that he intended to use his most important term, \"struggle for\nexistence\" in \"a large and metaphorical sense.\"\n\nWe have now seen the second element of Darwinism, namely, the \"struggle\nfor life.\" The theory of natural selection, then, postulates the\naccumulation of minute \"fortuitions\" individual modifications, which\nare useful to the possessor of them, by means of a struggle for life of\nsuch a sanguinary nature and of such enormous proportions as to result\nin the destruction of the overwhelming majority of adult individuals.\nThese are the correlative factors in the process of natural selection.\n\nIn view of the popular identification of Darwinism with the doctrine of\nevolution, on the one hand, and with the theory of struggle for life,\non the other hand, it is necessary to insist on the Darwinian\nconception of small, fluctuating, useful variations as the\n\"first-steps\" in the evolutionary process. For, this conception\ndistinguishes Darwinism from the more recent evolutionary theory, e.g.,\nof De Vries who rejects the notion that species have originated by the\naccumulation of fluctuating variations; and it is quite as essential to\nthe Darwinian theory of natural selection as is the \"struggle for\nlife.\" It is, in fact, an integral element in the selection theory.\n\nThe attitude of science towards Darwinism may, therefore, be\nconveniently summarized in its answer to the following questions:\n\n1. Is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among mature\nforms, as Darwin postulates, actually occurs?\n\n2. Can the origin of adaptive structures be explained on the ground of\ntheir _utility_ in this struggle, i.e., is it certain or even\nprobable that the organism would have perished, had it lacked the\nparticular adaptation in its present degree of perfection? On the\ncontrary, is there not convincing proof that many, and presumably most,\nadaptations cannot be thus accounted for?\n\nThe above questions are concerned with \"the struggle for life.\" Those\nwhich follow have to do with the problem of variations.\n\n3. Is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by the\naccumulation of fluctuating individual variations?\n\n4. Does the evidence of the geological record--which, as Huxley\nobserved, is the only direct evidence that can be had in the question\nof evolution--does this evidence tell for or against the origin of\nexisting species from earlier ones by means of minute gradual\nmodifications?\n\nWe must be content here with the briefest outline of the reply of\nscience to these inquiries.\n\n1. Darwin invites his readers to \"keep steadily in mind that each\norganic being is striving to increase in geometrical ratio.\" If this\ntendency were to continue unchecked, the progeny of living beings would\nsoon be unable to find standing room. Indeed, the very bacteria would\nquickly convert every vestige of organic matter on earth into their own\nsubstance. For has not Cohn estimated that the offspring of a single\nbacterium, at its ordinary rate of increase under favorable conditions,\nwould in three days amount to 4,772 billions of individuals with an\naggregate weight of seven thousand five hundred tons? And the\n19,000,000 elephants which, according to Darwin, should to-day\nperpetuate the lives of each pair that mated in the twelfth\ncentury--surely these would be a \"magna pars\" in the sanguinary\ncontest. When the imagination views these and similar figures, and\nplaces in contrast to this multitude of living beings, the limited\nsupply of nourishment, the comparison of nature with a huge\nslaughterhouse seems tame enough. But reason, not imagination, as\nDarwin observes more than once, should be our guide in a scientific\ninquiry.\n\nIt is observed on careful reflection that Darwin's theory is endangered\nby an extremely large disturbing element, viz., accidental destruction.\nUnder this term we include all the destruction of life which occurs in\nutter indifference to the presence or absence of any individual\nvariations from the parent form. Indeed, the greatest destruction takes\nplace among immature forms before any variation from the parent stock\nis discernible at all. In this connection we may instance the vast\namount of eggs and seeds destroyed annually irrespective of any\nadaptive advantage that would be possessed by the matured form. And the\ncountless forms in every stage of individual development which meet\ndestruction through \"accidental causes which would not be in the least\ndegree mitigated by certain changes of structure or of constitution\nwhich would otherwise be beneficial to the species.\" This difficulty,\nDarwin himself recognized. But he was of opinion that if even\n\"one-hundredth or one-thousandth part\" of organic beings escaped this\nfortuitous destruction, there would supervene among the survivors a\nstruggle for life sufficiently destructive to satisfy his theory. This\nsuggestion, however, fails to meet the difficulty. For, as Professor\nMorgan points out, Darwin assumes \"that a second competition takes\nplace after the first destruction of individuals has occurred, and this\npresupposes that more individuals reach maturity than there is room for\nin the economy of nature.\" It presupposes that the vast majority of\nforms that survive accidental destruction, succumb in the second\nstruggle for life in which the determining factor is some slight\nindividual variation, e.g., a little longer neck in the case of the\ngiraffe, or a wing shorter than usual in the case of an insect on an\nisland. The whole theory of struggle, as formulated by Darwin, is,\ntherefore, a violent assumption. Men of science now recognize that\n\"egoism and struggle play a very subordinate part in organic\ndevelopment, in comparison with co-operation and social action.\" What,\nindeed, but a surrender of the paramountcy of struggle for life, is\nHuxley's celebrated Romanes lecture in which he supplants the cosmic\nprocess by the ethical? The French free-thinker, Charles Robin, gave\nexpression to the verdict of exact science when he declared: \"Darwinism\nis a fiction, a poetical accumulation of probabilities without proof,\nand of attractive explanations without demonstration.\"\n\n2. The hopeless inadequacy of the struggle for life to account for\nadaptive structures has been dealt with at considerable length by\nProfessor Morgan in the concluding chapters of the work already\nmentioned. We cannot here follow him in his study of the various kinds\nof adaptations, e.g., form and symmetry, mutual adaptation of colonial\nforms, protective coloration, organs of extreme perfection, tropisms\nand instincts, etc., in regard to the origin of each of which he is\nforced to abandon the Darwinian theory. It will suffice to call\nattention to his conclusions concerning the phenomena of regeneration\nof organs. By his research in this special field Professor Morgan has\nwon international recognition among men of science. It was while\nprosecuting his studies in this field that he became impressed with\nthe utter bankruptcy of the theory of natural selection which\nDarwinians put forward to explain the acquisition by organisms of this\nmost useful power of regeneration. It is not difficult to show that\nregeneration could not in many cases, and presumably in none, have\nbeen acquired through natural selection (p. 379). If an earth worm\n(_allolobophora foctida_) be cut in two in the middle, the posterior\npiece regenerates at its anterior cut end, not a head but a tail. \"Not\nby the widest stretch of the imagination can such a result be accounted\nfor on the selection theory.\" Quite the reverse case presents itself\nin certain planarians. If the head of _planaria lugubris_ is cut\noff just behind the eyes, there develops at the cut surface of the\nhead-piece another head turned in the opposite direction. \"These and\nother reasons,\" concludes Professor Morgan (p. 381), \"indicate with\ncertainty that regeneration cannot be explained by the theory of\nnatural selection.\"\n\nThe ingenuity of the Darwinian imagination, however, will hardly fail\nto assign some reason why two heads are more useful than one in the\nabove instance, and thus reconcile the phenomenon with Darwinism. For,\naccording to Professor Morgan \"to imagine that a particular organ is\nuseful to its possessor and to account for its origin because of the\nimagined benefit conferred, is the general procedure of the followers\nof the Darwinian school.\" \"Personal conviction, mere possibility,\"\nwrites Quatrefages, \"are offered as proofs, or at least as arguments\nin favor of the theory.\" \"The realms of fancy are boundless,\" is\nBlanchard's significant comment on Darwin's explanation of the\nblindness of the mole. \"On this class of speculation,\" says Bateson in\nhis \"Materials for the Study of Variation,\" referring to Darwinian\nspeculation as to the beneficial or detrimental nature of variations,\n\"on this class of speculation the only limitations are those of the\ningenuity of the author.\" The general form of Darwin's argument,\ndeclared the writer of a celebrated article in the North British\nReview, is as follows: \"All these things may have been, therefore my\ntheory is possible; and since my theory is a possible one, all those\nhypotheses which it requires are rendered probable.\"\n\n3. We pass now to the question of the possibility of building up a new\nspecies by the accumulation of chance individual variations. That\nspecies ever originate in this way is denied by the advocates of the\nevolutionary theory which is now superseding Darwinism. Typical of the\nnew school is the botanist Hugo De Vries of Amsterdam. The\n\"first-steps\" in the origin of new species according to De Vries are\nnot fluctuating individual variations, but mutations, i.e., definite\nand permanent modifications. According to the mutation theory a new\nspecies arises from the parent species, not gradually but suddenly. It\nappears suddenly \"without visible preparation and without transitional\nsteps.\" The wide acceptance with which this theory is meeting must be\nattributed to the fact that men of science no longer believe in the\norigin of species by the accumulation of slight fluctuating\nmodifications. To quote the words of De Vries, \"Fluctuating variation\ncannot overstep the limits of the species, even after the most\nprolonged selection--still less can it lead to the production of new,\npermanent characters.\" It has been the wont of Darwinians to base their\nspeculations on the assumption that \"an inconceivably long time\" could\neffect almost anything in the matter of specific transformations. But\nthe evidence which has been amassed during the past forty years leaves\nno doubt that there is a limit to individual variability which neither\ntime nor skill avail to remove. As M. Blanchard asserts in his work,\n_La vie des etres animes_ (p. 102), \"All investigation and observation\nmake it clear that, while the variability of creatures in a state of\nnature displays itself in very different degrees, yet, in its most\nastonishing manifestations, it remains confined within a circle beyond\nwhich it cannot pass.\"\n\nIt is interesting to observe how writers of the Darwinian school\nattempt to explain the origin of articulate language as a gradual\ndevelopment of animal sounds. \"It does not,\" observes Darwin, \"appear\naltogether incredible that some unusually wise ape-like animal should\nhave thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey, so as to\nindicate to his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected danger. And\nthis would have been a first step in the formation of a language.\" But\nwhat a tremendous step! An ape-like animal that \"thought\" of imitating\na beast must certainly have been \"unusually wise.\" In bridging the\nchasm which rational speech interposes between man and the brute\ncreation, the Darwinian is forced to assume that the whole essential\nmodification is included in the first step. Then he conceals the\nassumption by parcelling out the accidental modification in a supposed\nseries of transitional stages. He endeavors to veil his inability to\nexplain the first step, as Chevalier Bunsen remarked, by the easy but\nfruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to explain\nthe gradual development of animals into men; as if millions of years\ncould supply the want of an agent necessary for the first movement, for\nthe first step in the line of progress. \"How can speech, the expression\nof thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of years, out of\nunarticulated sounds which express feelings of pleasure, pain, and\nappetite? The common-sense of mankind will always shrink from such\ntheories.\"\n\n4. The hopes and fears of Darwinians have rightly been centered on the\nhistory of organic development as outlined in the geological record. It\nhas been pointed out repeatedly by the foremost men of science that if\nthe theory of genetic descent with the accumulation of small variations\nbe the true account of the origin of species, a complete record of the\nancestry of any existing species would reveal no distinction of species\nand genera. Between any two well-defined species, if one be derived\nfrom the other, there must be countless transition forms. But\npalaeontology fails to support the theory of evolution by minute\nvariations. Darwinism has been shattered on the geologic rocks. \"The\ncomplete absence of intermediate forms,\" says Mr. Carruthers, \"and the\nsudden and contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely\nseparated groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any\ncountenance from the plant record of these ancient rocks. The whole\nevidence is against evolution (i.e., by minute modification) and there\nis none for it.\" (cf. _History of Plant Life and its Bearing on\nTheory of Evolution_, 1898). Similar testimony regarding the animal\nkingdom is borne by Mr. Mivart in the following carefully worded\nstatement: \"The mass of palaeontological evidence is indeed\noverwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification.\" \"The Darwinian\ntheory,\" declared Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, recently, \"has not\na single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the\nresult of scientific research, but purely the product of the\nimagination.\"\n\nOn one occasion Huxley expressed his conviction that the pedigree of\nthe horse as revealed in the geological record furnished demonstrative\nevidence for the theory of evolution. The question has been entered\ninto in detail by Professor Fleischmann in his work, _Die\nDescendenstheorie_. In this book the Erlangen professor makes great\ncapital out of the \"trot-horse\" (Paradepferd) of Huxley and Haeckel;\nand as regards the evolutionary theory, easily claims a verdict of\n\"not proven.\" In this connection the moderate statement of Professor\nMorgan is noteworthy: \"When he (Fleischmann) says there is no absolute\nproof that the common plan of structure must be the result of blood\nrelationship, he is not bringing a fatal argument against the theory of\ndescent, for no one but an enthusiast sees anything more in the\nexplanation than a very probable theory that appears to account for the\nfacts. To demand an absolute proof is to ask for more than any\nreasonable advocate of the descent theory claims for it.\" (Professor\nMorgan, as we have already seen, rejects Darwinism, and inclines to the\nmutation theory of De Vries.) The vast majority of Darwinians must,\ntherefore, be classed as \"enthusiasts\" who are not \"reasonable\nadvocates of the descent theory.\" For has not Professor Marsh told his\nreaders that \"to doubt evolution is to doubt science?\" And similar\nassertions have been so frequently made and reiterated by Darwinians\nthat the claim that Darwinism has become a dogma contains, as Professor\nMorgan notes, more truth than the adherents of that school find\npleasant to hear.\n\nMore interesting, however, than Huxley's geological pedigree of the\nhorse is Haeckel's geological pedigree of man. One who reads Haeckel's\n_Natural History of Creation_ can hardly escape the impression that\nthe author had actually seen specimens of each of the twenty-one\nancestral forms of which his pedigree of man is composed. Such,\nhowever, was not the case. Quatrefages, speaking of this wonderful\ngenealogical tree which Haeckel has drawn up with such scientific\naccuracy of description, observes: \"The first thing to remark is that\n_not one_ of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been\nseen, either living or in fossil. Their existence is based entirely\nupon theory.\" (_Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. _p._ 76). \"Man's pedigree as\ndrawn up by Haeckel,\" says the distinguished savant, Du Bois-Reymond,\n\"is worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical\nhistorians.\"\n\nIn constructing his genealogies Haeckel has frequent recourse to his\ncelebrated \"Law of Biogenesis.\" The \"Law of Biogenesis\" which is the\ndignified title Haeckel has given to the discredited recapitulation\ntheory, asserts that the embryological development of the individual\n(ontogeny), is a brief recapitulation, a summing up, of the stages\nthrough which the species passed in the course of its evolution in the\ngeologic past, (phylogeny). Ontogeny is a brief recapitulation of\nphylogeny. This, says Haeckel, is what the \"fundamental Law of\nBiogenesis\" teaches us. (The reader of Haeckel and other Darwinians\nwill frequently find laws put forward to establish facts: whereas other\nmen of science prefer to have facts establish laws). When, therefore,\nas Quatrefages remarks, the transition between the types which Haeckel\nhas incorporated into his genealogical tree, appears too abrupt, he\noften betakes himself to ontogeny and describes the embryo in the\ncorresponding interval of development. This description he inserts in\nhis genealogical mosaic, by virtue of the \"Law of Biogenesis.\"\n\nMany theories have been constructed to explain the phenomena of\nembryological development. Of these the simplest and least mystical is\nthat of His in the great classic work on embryology, \"Unsere\nKoerperform.\" His tells us: \"In the entire series of forms which a\ndeveloping organism runs through, each form is the necessary antecedent\nstep of the following. If the embryo is to reach the complicated\nend-form, it must pass, step by step, through the simpler ones. Each\nstep of the series is the physiological consequence of the preceding\nstage, and the necessary condition for the following.\" But whatever\ntheory be accepted by men of science, it is certainly not that proposed\nby Haeckel. Carl Vogt after giving Haeckel's statement of the \"Law of\nBiogenesis\" wrote: \"This law which I long held as well-founded, is\nabsolutely and radically false.\" Even Oskar Hertwig, perhaps the best\nknown of Haeckel's former pupils, finds it necessary to change\nHaeckel's expression of the biogenetic law so that \"a contradiction\ncontained in it may be removed.\" Professor Morgan, finally, rejects\nHaeckel's boasted \"Law of Biogenesis\" as \"_in principle, false_.\"\nAnd he furthermore seems to imply that Fleischmann merits the reproach\nof men of science, for wasting his time in confuting \"the antiquated\nand generally exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel.\"\n\n\"Antiquated and generally exaggerated views.\" Such is the comment of\nscience on Haeckel's boast that Darwin's pre-eminent service to science\nconsisted in pointing out how purposive adaptations may be produced by\nnatural selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they\nmay be produced by artificial selection and human design. And yet the\nlatest and least worthy production from the pen of this Darwinian\nphilosopher, _The Riddle of the Universe_, is being scattered\nbroad-cast by the anti-Christian press, in the name and guise of\n_popular_ science. It is therein that the evil consists. For the\ndiscerning reader sees in the book itself, its own best refutation. The\npretensions of Haeckel's \"consistent and monistic theory of the eternal\ncosmogenetic process\" are best met by pointing to the fact that its\nmost highly accredited and notorious representative has given to the\nworld in exposition and defense of pure Darwinian philosophy, a work,\nwhich, for boldness of assertion, meagerness of proof, inconsequence of\nargument, inconsistency in fundamental principles and disregard for\nfacts which tell against the author's theory, has certainly no equal in\ncontemporary literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of Professor\nPaulsen, the book \"fairly drips with superficiality\" (von Seichtigkeit\ntriefen). If the man of science is to be justified, as Huxley\nsuggested, not by faith but by verification, Haeckel and his docile\nDarwinian disciples have good reason to tremble for their scientific\nsalvation.\n\nEDWIN V. O'HARA.\n\nSt. Paul, Minn.\n\n\n\n\n_INTRODUCTION._\n\n\nDuring the last few years I have published under this title short\narticles dealing with the present status of Darwinism. In view of the\nkind reception which has been accorded to these articles by the reading\npublic I have thought it well to bring them together in pamphlet form.\nIndeed, the Darwinian movement and its present status are eminently\ndeserving of consideration, especially on the part of those before whom\nDarwinism has hitherto always been held up triumphantly as a scientific\ndisproof of the very foundations of the Christian faith.\n\nBy way of introduction and explanation some general preliminary remarks\nmay not be amiss here. Previous to twenty or thirty years ago, it was\njustifiable to identify Darwinism with the doctrine of Descent, for at\nthat time Darwinism was the only doctrine of Descent which could claim\nany general recognition. Consequently, one who was an adherent of the\ndoctrine of Descent was also a Darwinian. Those to whom this did not\napply were so few as to be easily counted. The dispute then hinged\nprimarily on Darwinism; hence, for those who did not admit the truth of\nthat theory, the doctrine of Descent was for the most part also a myth.\n\nI say, for the most part; for there were already even at that time a\nfew clear-sighted naturalists (Wigand, Naegeli, Koelliker and others)\nwho saw plainly the residue of truth that would result from the\ndiscussion. But to the overwhelming majority, the alternatives seemed\nto be: Either Darwinism or no evolution at all. Today, however, the\nstate of things is considerably altered. The doctrine of Descent is\nclearly and definitely distinguished from Darwinism at least by the\nmajority of naturalists. It is therefore of the utmost importance that\nthis luminous distinction should likewise become recognized in lay\ncircles.\n\nMy object in these pages is to show that Darwinism will soon be a thing\nof the past, a matter of history; that we even now stand at its\ndeath-bed, while its friends are solicitous only to secure for it a\ndecent burial.\n\nOut of the chaos of controversy which has obtained during the last four\ndecades there has emerged an element of truth--for there lurks a germ\nof truth in most errors--which has gained almost universal recognition\namong contemporary men of science, namely, the doctrine of Descent. The\nfact that living organisms form an ascending series from the less\nperfect to the more perfect; the further fact that they also form a\nseries according as they display more or less homology of structure and\nare formed according to similar types; and, lastly, that the fossil\nremains of organisms found in the various strata of the earth's surface\nlikewise represent an ascending series from the simple to the more\ncomplex--these three facts suggested to naturalists the thought that\nliving organisms were not always as we find them to-day, but that the\nmore perfect had developed from simpler forms through a series of\nmodifications. These thoughts were at first advanced with some\nhesitation, and were confined to narrow circles. They received,\nhowever, material support when, during the fourth decade of the 19th\ncentury the splendid discovery was made (by K. E. von Baer) that every\norganism is slowly developed from a germ, and in the process of\ndevelopment passes through temporary lower stages to a permanent higher\none. Even at that time many naturalists believed in a corresponding\ndevelopment of the whole series of organisms, without of course being\nable to form a clear conception of the process. Such was the state of\naffairs when Darwin in the year 1859 published his principal work,\n_The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In this\nwork for the first time an exhaustive attempt was made to sketch a\nclear and completely detailed picture of the process of development.\n\nDarwin started with the fact that breeders of animals and growers of\nplants, having at their disposal a large number of varieties, always\ndiverging somewhat from each other, choose individuals possessing\ncharacteristics which they desired to strengthen, and use only these\nfor procreation. In this manner the desired characteristic is gradually\nmade more prominent, and the breeder appears to have obtained a new\nspecies. Similar conditions are supposed to prevail in Nature, only\nthat there is lacking the selecting hand of the breeder. Here the\nso-called principle of Natural Selection holds automatic sway by means\nof the Struggle for Existence. All the various forms of life are\nwarring for the means of subsistence, each striving to obtain for\nitself the best nourishment, etc. In this struggle those organisms will\nbe victorious which possess the most favorable characteristics; all\nothers must succumb. Hence those only will survive which are best\nadapted to their environment. But between those which survive, the\nstruggle begins anew, and when the favoring peculiarities become more\npronounced in some, (by chance, of course) these in turn win out. Thus\nNature gradually improves her various breeds through the continued\naction of a self-regulating mechanism. Such are the main features of\nDarwinism, its real kernel, about which of course,--and this is a proof\nof its insufficiency,--from the very beginning a number of auxiliary\nhypotheses attached themselves.\n\nDarwin's theory sounds so clear and simple, and seems at first blush so\nluminous that it is no wonder if many careful naturalists regarded it\nas an incontrovertible truth. The warning voice of the more prudent men\nof science was silenced by the loud enthusiasm of the younger\ngeneration over the solution of the greatest of the world-problems: the\ngenesis of living beings had been brought to light, and--a thing which\nadmitted of no doubt--man as well as the brute creation was a product\nof purely natural evolution. The doctrine which materialism had already\nproclaimed with prophetic insight, had at length been irrefragably\nestablished on a scientific basis: God, Soul and Immortality were\ncontemptuously relegated to the domain of nursery tales. What further\nuse was there for a God when, in addition to the Kant-Laplacian theory\nof the origin of the planetary system, it had been discovered that\nliving organisms had likewise evolved spontaneously? How could man who\nhad sprung from the irrational brute possess a soul? And thus, finally,\ndisappeared the third delusion, the hope of immortality. For with death\nthe functions of the body simply cease, as also do those of the brain,\nwhich people had foolishly believed to be something more than an\naggregation of atoms. The body dissolves into its constituent elements\nand serves in its turn to build up other organisms: but as a human body\nit all turns to dust nor 'leaves a wrack behind'. Thus Darwinism was\nmade the basis first for a materialistic, and then for a monistic, view\nof the world, and hence came to be rigorously opposed to every form of\nTheism. But since, at that time, Darwinism was the only theory of\nevolution recognized by the world of science, the opposition of the\nChristian world was directed not specifically against Darwinism, but\nagainst the theory of evolution as such. The wheat was rooted up with\nthe tares.\n\nI will not discuss here which of the two views concerning creation; the\norigin of the world in one moment of time, or a gradual evolution of\nthe world and its potentialities, is the more worthy of the creative\npower of God. Manifestly the greatness and magnificence of creation\nwill in no way be compromised by the concept of evolution. This, of\ncourse, is simply my opinion. Any further statement would be out of\nplace here.\n\nBut what is the Darwinian position?\n\nIt is merely a special form of the evolutionary theory, one of the\nvarious attempts to explain how the process of development actually\ntook place. Darwinism as understood in the following chapters possesses\nthe following characteristic traits:\n\n(1) Evolution began and continues without the aid or intervention of a\nCreator.\n\n(2) In the production of Variations there is no definite law; Chance\nreigns supreme.\n\n(3) There is no indication of purpose or finality to be detected\nanywhere in the evolutionary process.\n\n(4) The working factor in evolution is Egoism, a war of each against\nhis fellows: this is the predominating principle which manifests itself\nin Nature.\n\n(5) In this struggle the strongest, fleetest and most cunning will\nalways prevail, (the Darwinian term \"fittest\" has been the innocent\nsource of a great deal of error).\n\n(6) Man, whether you regard his body or his mind, is nothing but a\nhighly developed animal.\n\nA careful examination of Darwinism shows that these are the necessary\npresuppositions, or, if you will, the inevitable consequences of that\ntheory. To accept that theory is to repudiate the Christian view of the\nworld. The truth of the above propositions is utterly incompatible, not\nonly with any religious views, but with our civil and social principles\nas well.\n\nThe most patent facts of man's moral life, however, cannot be explained\non any such hypothesis, and the logic of events has already shown that\nDarwinism could never have won general acceptance but for the\nincautious enthusiasm of youth which intoxicated the minds of the\nrising generation of naturalists and incapacitated them for the\nexercise of sober judgment. To show that there is among contemporary\nmen of science a healthy reaction against Darwinism is the object of\nthis treatise.\n\nThe reader may now ask, What, then, is your idea of evolution? It\ncertainly is easier to criticise than to do constructive work. An\nhonest study of nature, however, inevitably leads us to the conclusion\nthat the final solution of the problem is still far distant. Many a\nstone has already been quarried for the future edifice of evolution by\nunwearied research during the last four decades. But in opposition to\nDarwinism it may, at the present time, be confidently asserted that any\nfuture doctrine of evolution will have to be constructed on the\nfollowing basic principles:\n\n(1) All evolution is characterized by finality; it proceeds according\nto a definite plan, and tends to a definite end.\n\n(2) Chance and disorder find no place in Nature; every stage of the\nevolutionary process is the result of law-controlled factors.\n\n(3) Egoism and struggle among living organisms are of very subordinate\nimportance in comparison with co-operation and social action.\n\n(4) The soul of man is an independent substance, and entirely\nunintelligible as a mere higher stage of development of animal\ninstinct.\n\nA theory of evolution, however, resting on these principles cannot\ndispense with a Creator and Conserver of the world and of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\n\"It was a happy day that people threw off the straight-jacket of logic\nand the burdensome fetters of strict method, and mounting the\nlight-caparisoned steed of philosophic science, soared into the\nempyrean, high above the laborious path of ordinary mortals. One may\nnot take offense if even the most sedate citizen, for the sake of a\nchange, occasionally kicks over the traces, provided only that he\nreturns in due time to his wonted course. And now in the domain of\nBiology, one is led to think that the time has at length arrived for\nputting an end to mad masquerade pranks and for returning without\nreserve to serious and sober work, to find satisfaction therein.\" With\nthese words did the illustrious Wigand, twenty-five years ago, conclude\nthe preface to the third volume of his large classical work against\nDarwinism. True, he did not at that time believe that the mad campaign\nof Darwinism had already ended to its own detriment, but he always\npredicted with the greatest confidence that the struggle would soon\nterminate in victory for the anti-Darwinian camp. When Wigand closed\nhis eyes in death in 1896, he was able to bear with him the\nconsciousness that the era of Darwinism was approaching its end, and\nthat he had been in the right.\n\nToday, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than\nthat Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen\nits day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades\nhence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of\nDescent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in\nmany respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time\ntook possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them\nas the excitement attending some mad revel.\n\nA justification of our hope that Wigand's warning prediction will\nfinally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact that to-day the younger\ngeneration of naturalists is departing more and more from Darwinism. It\nis a fact worthy of special mention that the opposition to Darwinism\nto-day comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists, whereas thirty\nyears ago large numbers of zoologists from Jena associated themselves\nwith the Darwinian school, hoping to find there a full and satisfactory\nsolution for the profoundest enigmas of natural science.\n\nThe cause of this reaction is not far to seek. There was at the time a\nwhole group of enthusiastic Darwinians among the university professors,\nHaeckel leading the van, who clung to that theory so tenaciously and\nwere so zealous in propagating it, that for a while it seemed\nimpossible for a young naturalist to be anything but a Darwinian. Then\nthe inevitable reaction gradually set in. Darwin himself died, the\nDarwinians of the sixties and seventies lost their pristine ardor, and\nmany even went beyond Darwin. Above all, calm reflection took the place\nof excited enthusiasm. As a result it has become more and more apparent\nthat the past forty years have brought to light nothing new that is of\nany value to the cause of Darwinism. This significant fact has aroused\ndoubts as to whether after all Darwinism can really give a satisfactory\nexplanation of the genesis of organic forms.\n\nThe rising generation is now discovering what discerning scholars had\nalready recognized and stated a quarter of a century ago. They are also\nreturning to a study of the older opponents of Darwinism, especially of\nWigand. It is only now, many years after his death, that a tribute has\nbeen paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately was\ngrudgingly withheld during his life. One day recently there was laid\nbefore his monument in the Botanical Garden of Marburg a laurel-wreath\nwith the inscription: \"To the great naturalist, philosopher and man.\"\nIt came from a young zoologist at Vienna who had thoroughly mastered\nWigand's great anti-Darwinian work, an intelligent investigator who had\nset to work in the spirit of Wigand. Another talented zoologist, Hans\nDriesch, dedicates to the memory of Wigand two books in rapid\nsuccession and reprehends the contemporaries of that master of science\nfor ignoring him. O. Hammann abandons Darwinism for an internal\nprinciple of development. W. Haacke openly disavows Darwinism; and even\nat the convention of naturalists in 1897, L. Wilser was allowed to\nassert without contradiction that, \"anyone who has committed himself to\nDarwinism can no longer be ranked as a naturalist.\"\n\nThese are all signs which clearly indicate a radical revolution, and\nthey are all the more significant since it is the younger generation,\nwhich will soon take the lead, that thinks and speaks in this manner.\nBut it is none the less noteworthy that the younger naturalists are not\nalone in this movement. Many of the older men of science are swelling\nthe current. We shall recall here only the greatest of those whom we\nmight mention in this connection.\n\nJulius von Sachs, the most gifted and brilliant botanist of the last\ncentury, who unfortunately is no longer among us, was in the sixties an\noutspoken Darwinian, as is evident especially from his History of\nBotany and from the first edition of his Handbook of Botany. Soon,\nhowever, Sachs began to incline toward the position assumed by Naegeli;\nand as early as 1877, Wigand, in the third volume of his great work,\nexpressed the hope that Sachs would withdraw still further from\nDarwinism. As years went by, Sachs drifted more and more from his\nearlier position, and Wigand was of opinion that to himself should be\nascribed the credit of bringing about the change. During his last years\nSachs had become bitterly opposed to Darwinism, and in his masterly\n\"Physiological Notes\" he took a firm stand on the \"internal factors of\nevolution.\"\n\nDuring recent years I had the pleasure of occasional correspondence\nwith Sachs. On the 16th of September, 1896, he wrote me: For more than\ntwenty years I have recognized that if we are to build up a strictly\nscientific theory of organic structural processes, we must separate the\ndoctrine of Descent from Darwinism. It was with this intention that he\nworked during the last years of his life and it is to be hoped that his\nschool will continue his researches with this aim in view.\n\nThe tendency among naturalists to return to Wigand is well exemplified\nin an article contributed to the \"Preussischen Jahrbuecher\" for\nJanuary, 1897, by Dr. Karl Camillo Schneider, assistant at the\nzoological Institute of the University of Vienna. This article which is\nentitled The Origin of Species, pursues Wigand's train of thought\nthroughout, and whole sentences and even paragraphs are taken verbatim\nfrom his main work. This, at all events, is a very instructive\nindication of the present tendency which deserves prominence: and its\nsignificance becomes more evident when we recall how the work of Wigand\nwas received by the non-christian press a quarter of a century ago. It\nwas either ridiculed or ignored. The two methods of treatment were\napplied to his writings which are always readily employed when the\ncritic has nothing pertinent to say. It is interesting to note that\nDarwin himself employed this method. Wigand once told me that he had\nsent Darwin a copy of his work and had addressed a letter to him at the\nsame time merely stating that he had sent the book, making no reference\nto the line of thought contained in it. Darwin answered immediately in\nthe kindest manner that he had not as yet received the book, but when\nit arrived he would at once make a careful study of its contents.\nDarwin did not write to him again, and when a new edition of his works\nappeared, the work of Wigand, the most comprehensive answer to Darwin\never written, was passed over without even a passing mention. Thus\nDarwin completely ignored his keenest antagonist.\n\nAs has been said, the majority of those who wrote about Wigand\nridiculed him: very few regarded him seriously, and even these indulged\nchiefly in personal recriminations. Thus matters stood twenty-five\nyears ago. Wigand's prediction passed unheeded. That a periodical not\nhaving a specifically Christian circle of readers should now publish a\ncondemnation of Darwinism entirely in accordance with the views of\nWigand, is a fact which indicates a notable change of sentiment during\nthe intervening years. I should not be at all astonished if many who\nsneered at Wigand twenty years ago, now read the article in the\nPreussischen Jahrbuecher with entire approval. Ill-will towards Wigand\nhas not altogether disappeared even to-day. This is evident from the\nfact that as yet Dr. Schneider does not venture to defend Wigand\npublicly, nor to acknowledge him as his principal authority. We must be\ncontent, however, if only, the truth will finally prevail.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nStriking testimony relative to the present position of Darwinism is\nborne by the Strasburg zoologist, Dr. Goette, who has won fame by his\ninvaluable labors as an historian of evolutionary theory. In the\n\"Umschau,\" No. 5, 1898, he discusses the \"Present Status of Darwinism,\"\nand the conclusions he arrives at, are identical with mine. At the\noutset Goette indicates the distinction between Darwinism and the\ndoctrine of Descent, and then points out that the distinguishing\nfeatures of the former consist not so much in the three facts of\nHeredity, Variation, and Over-production, but rather in Selection,\nSurvival of the Fittest, and also in that mystical theory of\nheredity--the doctrine of Pangenesis--which is peculiarly Darwinian.\nSince this theory of Pangenesis has found no adherents, the question\nmay henceforth be restricted to the doctrine of natural selection. This\nGoette very well observes.\n\nHe points, moreover, to the fact that the misgivings that were\nentertained concerning the doctrine of natural selection on its first\nappearance, were, on the whole, precisely the same as they are to-day;\nonly with this difference, that formerly they were disregarded by\nnaturalists whose clearness of vision was obscured by excessive\nenthusiasm; whereas, to-day men have again returned to their sober\nsenses and lend their attention more readily to objections.\n\nGoette recalls the fact that M. Wagner tried to supplement natural\nselection with his \"Law of Migration,\" and that later on, Romanes and\nGulick endeavored to supply the evident deficiencies in Darwin's\ntheory, by invoking other principles; and that even at that time,\nAskenasy, Braun, and Naegeli--and more recently, the lately deceased\nEimer--insisted on the fact of definitely ordered variations, in\nopposition to the theory of Selection.\n\nMany naturalists recognize the difficulties but do not abandon the\ntheory of Selection, thinking that some supplementary principle would\nsuffice to make it acceptable: many others refuse to decide either for\nor against Darwinism and maintain towards it an attitude of\nindifference. The younger investigators, however, are utterly opposed\nto it. \"There can be no doubt that since its first appearance the\ninfluence of Darwinism on men's minds has notably diminished, although\nthe theory has not been entirely discarded.\"--But the very fact that\nthe younger naturalists are hostile to it, makes it evident that\nDarwinism has a still darker future in store for it: that sooner or\nlater it will come to possess a merely historical interest.\n\n\"The present position of Darwinism,\" says Goette, \"is characterized\nespecially by the uncertainty of criticism which is unable to declare\ndefinitely in favor of either side.\" Goette finds the chief cause of\nthis uncertainty in the fact \"that men of science (even Darwin himself)\nhave widened the concept of selection as a means of originating new\nspecies through the interaction of individuals in the same species, so\nas to express the mutually antagonistic relations existing between\nseveral such species.\" The latter alone is subject to experimental\nverification, but it can only cause the isolation of existing forms and\nis not a species-originating selection--with which alone we are here\nconcerned. This kind of selection can enfeeble the existing flora and\nfauna, but cannot produce a new species. Selection productive of new\nspecies \"is not actually demonstrable; it is a purely theoretical\ninvention.\"\n\nGoette next points out that the investigator is everywhere confronted\nby definitely-directed variation: a fact which does not harmonize with\nthe theory of selection, nor, consequently with Darwinism. If some\nscientists have not as yet accepted Eimer's presentation of this\ndoctrine, their action is most probably to be attributed to the fear\nlest \"they should have to accept not merely, variation according to\ndefinite laws, but likewise a principle of finality and other causes\nlying beyond the range of scientific investigation.\" The rejection of\nthe theory of selection often promotes, as Goette rightly observes, a\nreactionary tendency towards _a priori_ explanations of phenomena\nwith which we are but slightly acquainted. \"There are naturalists who\ndo not discard the theory of selection simply because it seems to\nfurnish a much-desired mechanical explanation of purposive adaptions\"\n(a momentous admission to which we shall have occasion to revert).\n\nOthers have broken entirely with selection and the principle of utility\nand extend the idea of finality to the general capacity of organisms to\npersist. Thus adaptation becomes a principle which transcends the\nlimits of natural science and pervades the whole domain of life. Goette\nobserves that Darwin spoke of useful, less useful and indifferent\norganisms, by which he meant those adaptations destined for particular\nvital functions which tend to make the organs more and more\nspecialized. Since the ability to live is threatened by this\nspecialization it cannot be purposive. This is not wholly true, because\nthe more specialized the individual organ becomes, the more perfect is\nthe whole organism which is composed of these specialized organs. The\nfunctions of the individual organ may be restricted, but the power of\nthe entire organism is notably increased, according to the law of the\ndivision of labor. Goette therefore has not sufficient grounds for\nrejecting this expression. He considers that a real and permanent\npurpose for the individual living forms is out of the question, but\nthat this purpose may be sought for in the development and history of\nthe collective life of nature. Definitely ordered variation, he thinks,\na scientific explanation of which is indeed yet forthcoming, will\nexplain adaptation equally as well as does selection. After what has\nbeen said this statement of Goette must come as a surprise, for one\nwould think that according to his view definite variation explains\nadaptations better than selection. Goette sums up his main conclusion\nin the following words: \"The doctrine of Heredity or of Descent, which\ncomes from Lamarck though it was first made widely known by Darwin, has\nsince continually gained a broader and surer foundation. But Darwin's\nown doctrine regarding the causes and process of Descent which alone\ncan be called Darwinism, has on the other hand doubtlessly waned in\ninfluence and prestige.\"\n\nThis is exactly what we also maintain: The establishment of the theory\nof Descent in general, and the continual retrogression of Darwinism in\nparticular. Wigand was entirely right when he said that Darwinism would\nnot live beyond the century.\n\nWe may, however, derive from the discussions of Goette something else\nthat is of the highest importance, namely, an admission in which is to\nbe found the real and fundamental explanation of the conduct of the\nmajority of naturalists who still cling to Darwinism. It does not\nconsist in the fact that they are convinced of the truth of Darwinism\nbut in their \"reluctance to give up the mechanical explanation of\nfinality proposed by Darwin,\" or rather in the fear of being driven to\nthe recognition of theistic principles. With commendable candor Goette\nattacks this method of keeping up a system notwithstanding its\nrecognized deficiencies. Goette furthermore points out especially that\nthis recognition is more widespread than one might be able to gather\nfrom occasional discussions on the subject.\n\nFrom the account which Goette gives of the present status of Darwinism\nwe may safely conclude that Darwinism had entered upon a period of\ndecay; it is in the third stage of a development through which many a\nscientific doctrine has already passed.\n\nThe four stages of this development are the following:\n\n1. The incipient stage: A new doctrine arises, the older\nrepresentatives of the science oppose it partly because of keener\ninsight and greater experience, partly also from indolence, not wishing\nto allow themselves to be drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium;\namong the younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in favor\nof the new doctrine.\n\n2. The stage of growth: the new doctrine continually gains greater\nfavor among the young generation, finding vent in bursts of enthusiasm;\nsome of the cautious seniors have passed away, others are carried along\nby the stream of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge, and\nthe voices of the thoughtful are no longer heard in the general uproar,\nexultingly proclaiming that to live is bliss.\n\n3. The period of decay: the joyous enthusiasm has vanished; depression\nsucceeds intoxication. Now that the young men have themselves grown\nolder and become more sober, many things appear in a different light.\nThe doubts already expressed by the old and prudent during the stage of\ngrowth are now better appreciated and gradually increase in weight.\nMany become indifferent, the present younger generation becomes\nperplexed and discards the theory entirely.\n\n4. The final stage: the last adherents of the \"new doctrine\" are dead\nor at least old and have ceased to be influential, they sit upon the\nruins of a grandeur that even now belongs to the \"good old time.\" The\ninfluential and directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine, once so\nimportant and seemingly invincible, for the consideration of living\nissues and the younger generation regards it as an interesting episode\nin the history of science.\n\nWith reference to Darwinism we are in the third stage which is\ncharacterized especially by the indifference of the present middle-aged\ngeneration and by growing opposition on the part of the younger coming\ngeneration. This very characteristic feature is brought into prominence\nby the discussion of Goette. If all signs, however, are not deceptive,\nthis third stage, that of decay, is drawing to an end; soon we shall\nenter the final stage and with that the tragic-comedy of Darwinism will\nbe brought to a close.\n\nIf some one were to ask me how according to the count of years, I\nshould determine the extent of the individual stages of Darwinism, this\nwould be my answer:\n\n1. The incipient stage extends from 1859 (the year during which\nDarwin's principal work, _The Origin of Species_, appeared) to the\nend of the sixties.\n\n2. The stage of growth: from that time, for about 20 years, to the end\nof the eighties.\n\n3. The stage of decay: from that time on to about the year 1900.\n\n4. The final stage: the first decade of the new century.\n\nI am not by choice a prophet, least of all regarding the weather. But I\nthink it may not be doubted that the fine weather, at least, has passed\nfor Darwinism. So having carefully scanned the firmament of science for\nsigns of the weather, I shall for once make a forecast for Darwinism,\nnamely: Increasing cloudiness with heavy precipitations, indications of\na violent storm, which threatens to cause the props of the structure to\ntotter, and to sweep it from the scene.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\nAs further witnesses to the passing of Darwinism, two botanists may be\ncited; the first is Professor Korschinsky who in No. 24, 1899, of the\n_Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift_ published an article on\n\"Heterogenesis and Evolution,\" which was to be followed later by a\nlarge work on this subject. With precision and emphasis he points to\nthe numerous instances in which there occurs on or in a plant, suddenly\nand without intervention, a variation which may become hereditary under\ncertain circumstances; thus during the last century a number of\nvarieties of garden plants have been evolved. On the basis of such\nexperiments Korschinsky developed the theory which had been proposed by\nKoelliker in Wuerzburg thirty years earlier, namely, the theory of\n\"heterogeneous production\" or \"heterogenesis,\" as Korschinsky calls it.\nWhen one understands that a plant gives rise suddenly and without any\nintervention to a grain of seed, which produces a different plant, it\nbecomes evident that all Darwinistic speculations about selection and\nstruggle for existence are forthwith absolutely excluded. The effect\ncan proceed only from the internal vital powers inherent in the\nspecified organism acting in connection, perhaps, with the internal\nconditions of life, which suddenly exert an influence in a new\ndirection.\n\nKorschinsky distinguishes clearly and definitely between the principles\nof Heterogenesis and Transmutation (gradual transformation through\nnatural selection in the struggle for existence), and in so doing comes\nto a complete denial of Darwinism.\n\nThe other naturalist who has dealt Darwinism a telling blow is the\nbotanist of Graz, Professor Haberlandt.\n\nHe published some very interesting observations and experiments in the\n\"Festschrift fuer Schwendener\" (Berlin 1899, Borntraeger). They are\nconcerned with a Liane javas of the family of mulberry plants\n(Conocephalus ovatus.) The free leaves possess under the outer layer, a\ntissue composed of large, thin-walled, water-storing cells; flat\ncavities on the upper side, having, furthermore, organs that secrete\nwater, which the botanist calls hydathodes. These are delicate, small,\nglandular cells over which are the bundles of vascular fibres\n(leaf-veins) that convey the water to them; over these in the top layer\nare so-called water-crevices through which the water can force itself\nto the outside. It is unnecessary to enter upon a closer explanation of\nthe anatomical structure of these peculiar organs. The water which is\nforced upward by the root-pressure of the plant is naturally conveyed\nthrough the vascular fibres into the leaves and at every hydathode the\nsuperfluous water oozes out in drops, a phenomenon which one can also\nvery nicely observe e.g. on the \"Lady's cloak\" (Alchemilla vulgaris) of\nthe German flora. A portion of the night-dew must be attributed to this\nsecretion of water. On the Liane, then, Haberlandt observed a very\nconsiderable secretion of water: a full-grown leaf secreted during one\nnight 2.76 g. of water (that is 26 per cent. of its own weight.)\nThrough this peculiarity the water supply within the plant is regulated\nand the danger avoided that any water should penetrate the surrounding\ntissue in consequence of strong root-pressure,--which would naturally\nobstruct the vital function of the entire leaf. Besides it is to be\nnoticed that in this way an abundant flow of water is produced: the\nplant takes up large quantities of water from the earth, laden with\nnutritive salts, and the distilled water is almost pure (it contains\nonly 0.045 g. salts), so that the nutritive salts are absorbed by the\nplant.\n\nFrom these considerations it necessarily appears that the hydathodes\nare of great biological importance to the plant.\n\nHaberlandt then \"poisoned\" the plant, by sprinkling it with a 0.1 per\ncent sublimate solution of alcohol. The purpose of this experiment was\nto ascertain whether in the secretion of water there was question of a\nmerely physical process or of a vital process. In the first case the\naction of the hydathode should continue even after the treatment with\nthe sublimate solution, while in the latter case it should not. As the\nsecretion ceased the obvious conclusion to be deduced from this\nexperiment is that the hydathodes do not act as purely mechanical\nfiltration-apparatuses, as one might have thought, but that there is\nhere evidence of an active vital process in the plant; the unusual term\n\"poisoning\" is therefore really justified under present circumstances.\n\nLet me dwell for a moment on this result, for, although it may be\nsomewhat foreign to our present purpose and to the further observations\nof Haberlandt, it is very significant in itself. The water moves in the\nplant in closed cells, as the cells of the aqueous gland are entirely\nclosed, but the organic membrane, as every one knows, has the peculiar\nphysical property of allowing water to pass through, the pressure, of\ncourse, being applied on the side of least resistance; when therefore\nthe water is forced into the cells by root-pressure, it is easily\nintelligible that according to purely physical laws it should come to\nthe surface of the leaf on the side of the least resistance, that is,\nby way of the water-crevices. Even the defenders of \"vital force\" would\nnot find any reason in this for not considering the phenomenon of\ndistillation in this case a purely physical phenomenon. And still\naccording to Haberlandt's experiments it is not. The sublimate could at\nmost only impede the process of filtration, but should under no\ncircumstances have destroyed it. But it does destroy it, and the\nhydathode dies. The conclusion certainly follows from this that this\nprocess is connected with some vital function. Even if the hydathode is\ntreated with sublimate solution, all the conditions for mechanical\nfiltration still remain: the earth has moisture which can be taken up\nby the roots so that root-pressure still exists. The water is in all\ncases conveyed to the hydathodes through the vascular fibres, the cell\nwalls of the hydathodes are still adapted for filtration, and yet they\ndo not filter. Hence some other factor must join itself to the\nphysico-mechanical process of filtration and affect or destroy it, and\nthis factor can be found only in the protoplasm, the vital element of\nthe cells; for we know that the sublimate acts with pernicious effect\non it and in such a manner that it destroys its entire power of\nreaction; it kills it, as we say.\n\nThe experiment under discussion has, therefore, great significance for\nour view of the vital processes in the plant; it proves beyond doubt\nthat these processes are in no way of a purely mechanical nature, but\nthat there is something underlying all this, a hitherto inexplicable\nsomething, which we call \"life.\" In all vital activities, physical and\nchemical processes certainly do occur; they do not, however, take place\nspontaneously but are made use of by the vital element of the plant to\nproduce an effect that is desirable or necessary for the vital activity\nof the plant. If the vital element is dead, no matter how favorable the\nconditions may be for chemical and physical processes, these do not\ntake place and the effect necessary for life is not obtained. It is\nvery remarkable after all that according to the experiment of\nHaberlandt this peculiar relation should become apparent in a process\nthat is so open to our investigation as the filtration of water through\nthe cell-wall of a plant.\n\nAfter what has been said I consider this simple experiment of\nHaberlandt of great significance; for it is a direct proof of the\nexistence of a vital force. One may resist to his heart's content, but\nwithout avail; vital force is again finding its way into science. More\nand more cognizance is being taken of the fact that 60 and 70 years ago\npeople jumped at conclusions very imprudently when they believed that\nthe first artificial preparation of organic matter (urea, by Woehler)\nhad proven the non-existence of a vital force. Since then there has\nbeen great rejoicing in the camp of materialists who scoffed at the\n\"ignorant\" who would not as yet forsake vital force. \"Behold,\" they\nsaid, \"in the chemist's retort the same matter is produced chemically\nthat is produced in the body of the animal, without the direction of a\nhidden vital force, which, if it is not necessary in the one case,\nneither is it necessary in the other.\" Any one who had given the matter\ncareful consideration could even at that time have known where the\n\"ignorant\" really were. That in both cases chemical processes take\nplace is clear and undisputed, but the materialists forgot entirely\nthat even in the laboratory it was not the mere contact of the elements\nthat produced the urea; a chemist was needed and in this case not any\none arbitrarily chosen, but a man of the genius and knowledge of a\nWoehler to watch over the process, and utilize and partly direct the\nlaws of chemistry in order to obtain the desired result. Hence it was\neven then absurd to deny vital force as a consequence of that\nexperiment. Since, however, it was well-adapted for materialistic\npurposes, this denial was proclaimed with the sound of trumpet\nthroughout the land, and repeated again and again with surprising\ntenacity, with the result that even thoughtful investigators rejected\nvital force almost universally in the seventies and eighties.\n\nIt has always been a problem to me how this could have happened. It\ncan, indeed, be explained only on the supposition that naturalists were\nadverse to the introduction of anything into nature, that appeared to\nthem mystical and mysterious. Nor is such a procedure at all necessary:\nvital force is by no means a mysterious, ghostly power that soars above\nnature, but a force of nature like its other forces, as mysterious and\nas definite as they are, only that it dominates a specified group of\nbeings, namely, living organisms. It may readily be compared with any\nother natural phenomenon. For instance, the phenomenon of crystallization\nhas its well determined sphere of activity, viz., the mineral world. It\nemploys definite mathematico-physical laws to obtain a specified\nresult, and even acts differently in different mineral substances in so\nfar as it produces in the one case this, in the other case that form;\nbut still it should be a similarly directed force which has the effect\nof producing these peculiar forms. Precisely similar is it with vital\nforce. It has its determined sphere of activity, the kingdom of living\norganisms; it acts according to definite physico-chemical laws in\nproducing a specified result; it acts differently in different living\norganisms; it is therefore a force of nature as clear yet as mysterious\nas the force of crystallization or as any other force of nature. Hence\none has no cause to complain of its mysteriousness, for all other\nforces of nature are just as much, or if you will, just as little\nmysterious as vital force. The only thing to be maintained is this,\nthat living organisms are dominated by a special force with special\nphenomena and special activities, even as in mineral substances there\nis a special dominant force which produces special phenomena and\nexercises special activities.\n\nIt is possible to produce crystals in the laboratory, but no one will\nbe so foolish as to maintain that in nature crystals are not formed in\nconsequence of a very definite force inherent in the mineral-substances;\nnor will any one deny the existence of the force of crystallization\nbecause it does not appear in living organisms.\n\nNor have I ever despaired of a return of the theory of vital force. A\nchange of opinion has really taken place during this decade; at present\nthe voices for a vital force are constantly growing stronger and it\nwill most probably not be very long before it will be again universally\nrecognized, not as something preternatural, of course, but as a force\nof nature on an equal footing with the other forces of nature, with\nactivities, just as mysterious and just as well-attested as the\nactivities of the other forces of nature.\n\nHaberlandt's experiment, however, had also an indirect consequence that\nis of far-reaching importance. He observed that within a few days new\nwater-secreting organs of an entirely different structure and of\ndifferent origin were formed on the leaves that had been sprinkled with\nsublimate. Over the bundles of vascular fibres, little knots as large\nas a pin head arose in larger numbers out of a tissue underlying the\ntop layer; out of these the water now oozed every morning. Closer\ninvestigation disclosed the fact that these organs develop only on\nyoung immature leaves where groups of peculiar, perishable gland-hairs\nare found; beneath these dead mucous glands the substitute secretive\norgans originate in the inner tissue. It is of no importance to state\nin what particular cells they originate.\n\nSuffice it to say that they are colorless capillary tubes originating\nin various cells; projecting like the hairs of a brush, containing\nliving protoplasm and evanescent chlorophyll. It is also important\nto note that this new organ is immediately connected with the\nwater-conducting system consisting of bundles of vascular fibres.\nHaberlandt furthermore indicates especially that these organs when\nviewed in connection with the process of secretion give evidence of an\nactive vital principle as well as of simple mechanical filtration.\n\nThese substitute organs are all indeed well adapted to their purpose\nand adequately replace the old secretive organs, but they so easily dry\nout and are so little protected that after a week they become parched\nand die because wound-cork forms under them. The leaf no longer\nproduces new hydathodes, but on its lower side it produces growths that\nfunction as vesicles, by means of which it continues to sustain itself.\n\nHaberlandt furthermore records a phenomenon perhaps analogous to this\non the grape-vine, but with this exception the case described by him is\nunique. In order to pass any further judgment regarding it, we should\nhave to ascertain whether the whole phenomenon is not a case of\nso-called adaptation; if so, processes should be found in nature,\nanalogous to the poisoning of the hydathodes in this experiment, which\nresult in the destruction of the hydathodes so that in consequence the\nplant would have gained the power of making good the loss, by means of\nthe substitute organs. Such processes, however, (even through poisoning\nor through parasites) would be very highly improbable. Equally\nincredible is the alternative possibility that the new organs would be\nproduced by the plant not as a substitute but as a supplementary\napparatus when the old ones would not suffice for secretion in case of\nvery large absorption of water. This also must doubtlessly be rejected,\nas Haberlandt has observed.\n\nPowers of adaptation should, of course, according to Darwinism, be\ngradually acquired in the struggle for existence, as in that case they\nshould also have stability; but since this is not possessed by the new\norgans, the presumption is that they do not possess the character of\nadaptation. They are therefore new organs that originated after an\nentirely unnatural and unforeseen interference with the normal vital\nfunctions and in consequence of a self-regulating activity of the\norganism.\n\nWhat then is there in the whole phenomenon worthy of notice with regard\nto the theory of Descent?\n\n1. An immediately well adapted new organ has here originated very\nsuddenly without any previous incipient formation, without gradual\nperfection and without stages of transition.\n\n2. In its formation struggle for existence and natural selection are\nentirely excluded, neither can find any application whatever even\naccording to the newer exposition of Weismann. Haberlandt himself draws\nthis conclusion.\n\n3. If this phenomenon of a suddenly appearing change can take place in\nthe course of the development of the individual, there can be no\nobvious reason why it should not take place in the same manner (without\nnatural selection or struggle for existence) in the course of the\nphylogenetic development.\n\nIt is manifestly of the greatest importance that in this case a direct,\nexperimental proof has been given that an organ has originated suddenly\nand without the aid of Darwinian principles. Haberlandt's article is\nnothing less than a complete renunciation of Darwinism on the part of\nHaberlandt, a renunciation which we greet with great satisfaction.\n\nIn fact one such observation would really suffice to set aside\nDarwinism and prove the utter insufficiency of its principles to give\nexplanation of the origin of natural species. On the other hand, this\nobservation plainly proves two things: first, that the above mentioned\ndoctrine of Koelliker, now held by Korschinsky is a move in the right\ndirection for the discovery of the causes of descent; and secondly,\nthat the principal cause of the evolution is not to be sought in\nenvironment and blind forces but in the systematically working,\ninternal vital principle in plants and animals. With that, however, an\nimportant part of the foundation of the mechanical-materialistic view\nof the world is demolished.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nSince we have heard the verdict of zoologists and botanists concerning\nDarwinism, it is but right that we should now listen to a\npalaeontologist, a representative of the science, which investigates\nthe petrified records of the earth's surface, and strives to collect\ninformation regarding the world of life during remote, by-gone ages of\nthe earth. It is evident to every-one that the verdict of this science\nmust be of very special importance in passing on the question of the\ndevelopment of living organisms. Darwin himself recognized this at the\noutset. He and his followers, however, soon perceived that, while the\nrevelations of palaeontology were on the whole favorable to the\ndoctrine of Descent, in so far as they proved the gradual change of\norganization, in consecutive strata, from the simple to more complex\nforms, palaeontology revealed nothing that would sustain the Darwinian\ntheory as to the method of that development. As soon as the Darwinians,\nand first of all Darwin himself, perceived this, they at once brought\nforward a very cheap subterfuge. Since Darwinism postulates a very\ngradual, uninterrupted development of living organisms, there must have\nbeen an immense number of transition-forms between any two animal or\nplant species which to-day, although otherwise related, are separated\nby characteristic features. Consequently, on the Darwinian hypothesis,\nall of these transition-forms must have perished for the singular\nreason that other better organized forms overcame them in the struggle\nfor existence. If therefore the millions of transition-forms were still\nmissing, and the known petrified forms of older strata of the earth did\nnot reveal them, the Darwinians were able to console themselves until\nfrom 20 to 40 years ago, with the assertion that our knowledge was\nstill too deficient, that a more thorough investigation of the earth's\nsurface and especially of out-of-the-way parts would eventually bring\nto light the supposed transition forms. Such assertion affords very\npoor consolation, and is anything but scientific. The method of natural\nscience consists in establishing general principles on the basis of the\nmaterials actually furnished by experiments and observation and not in\nexcogitating general laws and then consoling oneself with the thought\nthat while our knowledge of nature is as yet extremely imperfect, time\nwill furnish the actual material necessary to substantiate our guesses.\nBut since then many a year has come and gone and Darwinism has caused,\nand for that alone it deserves credit, a diligent research in every\nfield of natural science, and has promoted among palaeontologists a\nsearch for the missing transition-forms. The materials of investigation\nfrom the field of palaeontology have also wonderfully increased during\nthese decades. Hence it is worth while now at the dawn of the new\ncentury to examine this material with a view to its availableness for\nthe theory of Descent and especially for Darwinism.\n\nProfessor Steinmann has recently done so in Freiburg in Breisgau, on\nthe occasion of an address as Rector of the University. What\nconclusions did he reach?\n\nSteinmann declares it to be the primary task of post-Darwinian\npalaeontology \"to arrange the fossil animal and plant-remains in the\norder of descent and thus to build up a truly natural, because\nhistorically demonstrable, classification of the animal and\nplant-world.\" At the outset it is to be noted that for various reasons\npalaeontology is unable to execute this momentous task in its full\nextent. The evidence of palaeontology is deficient, if for no other\nreason than that many animal organisms could not be preserved at all on\naccount of their soft bodies; many animal groups have, nevertheless,\nreceived an unusual increase (mollusks, radiata, fish, saurians,\nvertebrates, and dendroid plants).\n\nAs regards the attempt made in the sixties to draw up lines of descent,\nSteinmann repudiates, without, of course, mentioning names, the family\ntree constructed by Haeckel and his associates as wholly hypothetical\nand hence unjustified; he rightly remarks that their method smacks of\nthe closet. He finds fault with them chiefly because they predicated\nactuality of this imaginary family-tree and fancied that the historical\nresearch of the future would have but isolated facts to establish.\n\nIn speaking of the palaeontological research of the last few decades,\nSteinmann says: \"In the light of recent research, fossil discoveries\nhave frequently appeared less intelligible and more ambiguous than\nbefore, and in those cases in which an attempt has been made to bring\nthe descent-system into agreement with the actual facts, the\nincongruity between the two has become obvious.\" Thus, for instance,\nthe well-known archaeopteryx is not, as was maintained, a connecting\nlink between reptile and bird, but a member of a blindly ending side\nbranch. In fact palaeontological research has proven incapable of\nfinding the transitions between different species, clearly determined\nby the theory. But the overwhelming abundance of matter called for new\nendeavors to master it. It was then further discovered--Steinmann finds\nan illustration of this fact in the echinodermata--that the well-known\n\"fundamental law of biogenesis\" of Haeckel can be accepted only in a\nvery restricted sense and may even lead to conclusions absolutely\nfalse. We desire to remark here that a \"fundamental principle\" should\nnever mislead; if it does so, it is not a fundamental principle.\n\nIt is of importance to know that according to palaeontological\ninvestigation, empiric systematizing and phylogenetic classification do\nnot always coincide, as, for instance, in the case of the ammonites.\nAcording to palaeontological investigation the great systematic\ncategories are only grades of organization. Hence present day\nsystematizing is being more and more discarded, and the said\ncategories--as indeed also the lesser groups of forms--must be of\npolyphyletic origin, that is, they must have descended from different\nprimitive stocks. It may be asked: What bearing has this principle of\nmultiple origins? For a long time reptiles were the predominating\nvertebrates; when mammals and birds appeared, numerous, varied and\nstrange saurians inhabited land and sea; but \"with the end of the\nchalk-period most saurians seem to have vanished suddenly from the\nscene, and soon we behold the mainlands and oceans inhabited by mammals\nof most diverse kinds.\" The saurians have become almost extinct and the\nmammal-tribe suddenly shows a most extraordinary variability and power\nof development. How is either phenomenon to be explained?\n\n\"The disappearance of a group of organisms has been preferably\nexplained since the time of Darwin, by defeat in the struggle with\nsuperior competitors. If ever an explanation lacked pertinency, it does\nso in this case, in which the succumbing group is represented by\ngigantic and well preserved animal forms, widely distributed and\naccustomed to the most varied methods of nutrition, whereas the\ncompetitor appears in the form of small, harmless marsupials. It would\nbe equivalent to a struggle between the elephant and the mouse.\"\n\nWe acknowledge with pleasure this clear rejection of Darwinism on the\npart of Steinmann.\n\nSteinmann also rejects the natural extinction of those forms, perhaps\nfrom the weakness of old age; whether he is wholly warranted in doing\nso, seems somewhat doubtful. He tries to explain the phenomenon on\nthe basis of the multiple origin of the mammals; and in fact there\nis already speculation regarding triple origin, viz: tambreets,\nmarsupials, and the other mammals. Now if the latter also possessed a\nmultiple origin, the problem of the extinction of the saurians would,\naccording to Steinmann solve itself. One would not need to consider the\nnumber of extinct forms as large as is now done. However, he does not\nenter upon any closer consideration of this question. But he points\nout, for instance, that to-day the shells of mollusks (snails and\nconchylia) are regarded as structures that were acquired only in the\ncourse of time for the sake of protection, the disappearance of which,\ntherefore, implied a disadvantage for the respective organisms. This\ntransition would be something extraordinary--\"but if on the contrary,\none regards the shells as the necessary products of a special kind of\nassimilation and of the immoveableness of certain parts of the body,\nthe gradual disappearance might well be considered a process which may\ntake place in various animal-groups with a certain regularity in the\ncourse of the phyletic development.\" The snails devoid of shells, for\ninstance, may be derived with certainty from those possessed of shells;\nthis process has very probably also taken place in different genetic\nlines.\n\nThis view is well worth consideration; it stands in sharp opposition,\nin fundamental principles, to the Darwinian explanation. This calls for\nspecial emphasis here. How should one explain the origin of uncrusted\nmollusks from crusted ones through the struggle for existence, since in\nsuch a contest the latter must have had far greater prospect of\nsurvival than the former?\n\nThis view together with the principle of multiple origin opens up,\naccording to Steinmann, \"the prospect of an altered conception of the\nprocess of formation of the organic world.\" According to the new\nconception, the many extinct forms of antiquity are not, as Darwin\nsupposed, \"unsuccessful attempts and continued aberrations of\nnature\"--how this reminds one of that old, naive, much-ridiculed idea\nthat fossils were models that God had discarded as unserviceable--but\nwould gain new life and assume hitherto unsuspected relationship to the\npresent organic creation.\n\n\"Science, which seeks after operative causes, at the beginning of the\ncentury regarded creation as a multiplicity of phenomena without any\ncausal connection as to their origin. Darwin taught as a fundamental\nprinciple the unity and the causal inter-relation of creation, but was\nnot entirely able to save this hypothesis from a violent and sudden\ndeath. In the future sketch creation will appear as wholly restricted\nin itself and lasting, the causes of its limitation lie, up to the time\nof the intervention of men, solely in the balanced motion of the planet\nwhich it peoples.\"\n\nAt the close of his address Steinmann points out that behind the\nproblem of the manner of development, there stands \"the unsolved\nquestion regarding its operative causes.\" \"Regarding this point,\" he\ncontinues, \"opinions have perhaps never been so divergent as they are\nto-day. The times have passed when the Darwinian explanations were\nregarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine\nof Descent. Not only are the adherents of Darwinian ideas divided among\nthemselves, but the theory of Lamarck, somewhat altered, favored by the\nresults of historical investigation, appears more striking and now\nseems more in harmony with facts than formerly. What is considered by\none as the ruling factor in the evolution of organisms is regarded by\nanother as a \"quantite negligeable\" or even as the greatest mistake of\nthe century. In this discord of opinions the principle of Descent alone\nforms the stable pole.\"\n\nThus Steinmann, and we can but applaud his conclusions with undisguised\npleasure, for they tend throughout in the direction of our anti-Darwinian\nview, and deal Darwinism another fatal blow. It is also worthy of\nspecial note that this time the blow is dealt from the side of\npalaeontology; for, even if now and again we dissent from Steinmann, in\nthis we fully agree with him that the historical method of considering\nthe evidences of bygone periods of creation is at the very least quite\nas important for passing correct judgment regarding descent, as is the\ninvestigation of contemporary living organisms. Indeed, family-trees\nwere constructed without regard for palaeontology, almost exclusively\nfrom an examination of present conditions, and sometimes the author did\nnot even shrink from falsification. This procedure has been bitterly\nrevenged and will take further revenge unless at length a definite end\nbe put to the family-tree nuisance and the respective books instead of\nbeing published anew, be relegated to the lumber-room of science, there\nto turn yellow amid dust and cobwebs--the curious evidence of gross\nfolly. But only have patience, even that time will come.\n\nThe conclusions of Steinmann, that are most important for us, may be\nsummarized as follows:\n\n1. The family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology by\nDarwinism for its family-trees, constructed not empirically but _a\npriori_, are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials which\npalaeontological investigation has already produced.\n\n2. The results of the investigation do not correspond with the family\ngroups drawn up according to the so-called \"biogenetic principle,\"\nwhich principle has in fact led men of science into false paths.\n\n3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited validity, (we add\nthat later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism and its family trees\ninto the lumber-room).\n\n4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance, as they\ntestify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent of\nmammals, everywhere contradict the Darwinian principle of the survival\nof the fittest in the struggle for existence.\n\n5. \"The time has long passed when the Darwinian explanations were\nregarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine\nof Descent.\"\n\n6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recognized; the \"how\"\nof it, its causes, are to-day entirely a matter of dispute.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nThe strongest evidence of the decay of Darwinism is to be found in the\nfact that, since Darwin first enunciated his theory, many and diverse\nattempts have been made to explain the origin of species on other\nprinciples. Names of men, like M. Wagner, Naegeli, Wigand, Koelliker,\nand Kerner mark these attempts; but of these investigators Naegeli\nalone proposed a well-developed hypothesis. Finally, however, Eimer,\nprofessor of zoology in Tuebingen came forward with a detailed theory\nof Descent. As early as 1888 he published a comprehensive work dealing\nwith it, under the title: \"The Origin of Species by Means of the\nTransmission of Acquired Characters According to the Laws of Organic\nGrowth.\" As the title itself indicates, a very marked divergence was\neven at that time manifesting itself between Eimer and his former\nteacher and friend, the great defender of Darwinism in Germany, Aug.\nWeismann, professor of zoology in Freiburg in Breisgau. For, while the\nlatter vigorously attacks the transmission of acquired characters,\nEimer's whole theory is founded on this very transmission. Observations\nregarding the coloring of animals, in fact, form the basis of Eimer's\ntheory.\n\nEimer attributes the origin of species to \"organic growth\" by which he\nmeans not merely increase in size, but also change of form, etc. This\ngrowth does not proceed blindly or aimlessly, but proceeds on rigidly\ndetermined lines, which depend upon the structure and constitution of\nthe particular organism. External influences, however, also affect it.\nEimer specially emphasizes four points in this connection: 1. This\nrigidly determined development of a character exhibits well defined,\nregular stages, and the evolution of each individual repeats the whole\nseries of transformations (the Mueller-Haeckel \"biogenetic-law.\") 2.\nNew characters are first acquired by strong adult males (the law of\nmale dominance). 3. New characters appear on definite parts of the\nbody, spreading especially from the rear to the front, (the law of\nundulation). 4. Varieties are stages in the process of development,\nthrough which all the individuals of the respective species must pass.\n\nThese points indicate how important for Eimer is the transmission of\nthose characters which the parents themselves have acquired in the\ncourse of their own development. He conceives that this transmission\ntakes place when the causative influences exert themselves permanently\non many succeeding generations. Eimer thinks that in this way the\nconstitution of the respective species is gradually transformed.\nBesides the effect of external influences (which may vary according to\nthe climate, etc.: Geoffroy St. Hilaire), Eimer mentions as important\nand active factors in this development, (1). The use and disuse of\norgans (Lamarck); (2). The struggle for existence (Darwin); (3). The\ncorrelation of organs, that is, the inner relation of organs in\nconsequence of which a change in one organ may occasion a sudden change\nin another organ; (4). Cross fertilization and hybridism.\n\nIt is clear that with reference to the factors of evolution Eimer is,\nand perhaps not unreasonably, an eclectic, whose aim is to do justice\nto the predecessors of Darwin as well as to Darwin himself. His\nantagonism to Darwin and Weismann in this work is still quite moderate,\nalthough even here it appears with sufficient clearness that selection\nand the struggle for existence, the two principles peculiarly\ncharacteristic of Darwinism, do not give rise to new species, but can\nat best only separate and differentiate species already existing.\n\nThe second part of Eimer's work dealing with the origin of species,\nwhich appeared after an interval of ten years, bears the title:\n\"Orthogenesis of Butterflies.\" The Origin of Species, II. Part (2\ntables and 235 illustrations in the text). Leipzig, 1897. In this book\nsubstantially the same thoughts occupy the mind of the author as in the\nformer volume, but in many respects they are more mature, and\nconspicuously more definite and precise. The most salient features are\nthe following:\n\n1. Eimer establishes his theory by means of very minute observations on\na definite species of animals, viz., butterflies.\n\n2. He attributes evolution almost exclusively to development along\ndefinitely determined lines.\n\n3. He proves the utter untenableness of Darwinian principles and\nrepudiates them unqualifiedly.\n\n4. In a very distinct and severe manner he gives expression to his\nopposition to his former friend Weismann.\n\n5. He attacks with telling effect the fantastic Darwinian \"Mimicry.\"\n\nIn his \"General Introduction\" Eimer first treats of Orthogenesis in\nopposition to the Darwinian theory of selection. The very first\nsentence gives evidence of this antagonism: \"According to my\ninvestigation, organic growth (Organophysis), which is rendered\ndependent on the plasm by permanent external influences, climate and\nnourishment, and the expression of which is found in development along\ndefinitely determined lines, (Orthogenesis), is the principal cause of\ntransformation, its occasional interruption and its temporary cessation\nand is likewise the principal cause of the division of the series of\norganisms into species.\"\n\nLamarck's theory of the use and disuse of organs and Darwin's\nhypothesis of natural selection are consequently pushed into the\nbackground. Here also Eimer at once places himself at variance with\nNaegeli who had enunciated a similar theory. Naegeli took as a starting\npoint an inherent tendency in every being to perfect itself, thus\npresupposing an \"inner principle of development,\" and making light of\nexternal influences as transforming causes. Eimer flatly contradicts\nthis view. We shall revert to this point in our criticism of his\ntheory. In opposition to the theory of selection, Eimer lays special\nstress on the fact that its underlying assumption, viz., fortuitous,\nindefinite variation in many different directions, is entirely devoid\nof foundation in fact, and that selection, in order to be effective,\npostulates the previous existence of the required useful characters,\nwhereas the very point at issue is to explain how these characters have\noriginated. Since, therefore, according to Eimer's investigations,\nthere are everywhere to be found only a few, definitely determined\nlines of variation, selection is incapable of exercising any choice.\nThe development, furthermore, proceeds without regard for utility,\nsince, for instance, the features that characterize a species of plants\nare out of all reference to utility. \"Even if nothing exists that is\nessentially detrimental, nevertheless very much does exist that bears\nno reference whatever to immediate good, and was therefore never\naffected by selection.\"\n\nFurther on, Eimer expresses still more clearly the opposition of his\ntheory to that of Darwin, and in so doing he attacks vigorously the\nomnipotence of selection, so unreasonably proclaimed by the followers\nof Darwin. Eimer's theory, consequently, asserts that: \"The essential\ncause of transmutation is organic growth, a definite variation, which,\nduring long periods of time proceeds unswervingly and without reference\nto utility, in but few directions and is conditioned by the action of\nexternal influences, of climate and nourishment.\" In consequence of an\ninterruption of orthogenesis a stoppage ensues in certain stages of the\ndevelopment, and this stoppage is the great cause of the arrangement of\nforms in different species. Of vital importance also \"is development\nthrough different stages (Hetero-epistase), which results in the\narrested development of certain characters in an organism, while others\nprogress and still others become retrogressive. As a rule use and\ndisuse are of great efficacy in this regard, and conjointly with these\ncompensation and correlation.\" Occasionally also irregular development\nsets in, which proceeds by leaps.\n\nOf course, Eimer could not but in his turn burn incense before Darwin\nby declaring that he would not dare to cross swords with such a man,\nwhile in reality he repudiates all of Darwin's fundamental tenets.\n\nIt may be well to state here in addition a few important supplementary\nconsiderations: \"Development can everywhere proceed in only a limited\nnumber of directions because the constitution, the material composition\nof the body, conditions these directions and prevents variation in all\ndirections.\" This is an important statement because Eimer clearly\nexpresses therein the difference between his own theory and that of\nNaegeli. He makes the direction of development dependent on the\nmaterial composition of the body, whereas Naegeli considers it\ndependent upon an internal tendency of every being to perfect itself,\nhence upon a power inherent in the body. Eimer's view therefore tends\ntowards a mechanical explanation, while Naegeli postulates a vital\nenergy. The \"internal causes\" according to Eimer find their explanation\nin the material composition of the body. Since the growth of the\nindividual organism depends on this composition and on the external\ninfluences, Eimer compares family-development with it and designates\nthe latter as \"organic growth.\" In opposition to Naegeli he maintains\nthat this \"organic growth\" does not always aim at perfection but often\ntends to simplification and retrogression.\n\nThe following, then, according to Eimer, are the directive principles\nof variation: (1). The general law of coloration (stripes running\nlengthwise change into spots, stripes running crosswise change to a\nuniform color). (2). The law of definitely directed local change (new\ncolors spread from the rear to the front and from above downward or\nvice versa, old colors disappear in the same directions.) (3). The law\nof male predominance (males are as a rule one step in advance of the\nfemales in development). Female predominance is an exception. (4). The\nlaw of age-predominance (new characters appear at a well-advanced age,\nand at the time of greatest strength). (5). The law of wave-like\ndevelopment (during the course of the formation of the individual\norganism a series of changes proceed in a definite direction over the\nbody of the animals). (6). The law of independent uniformity of\ndevelopment (the same course of development is pursued in non-related\nforms and results in similar forms). (7). The law of development\nthrough different stages (different characteristics of the same being\nmay develop to a different degree and in different directions). (8).\nThe law of unilateral development (the progeny does not present a\ncomplete combination of the characters of the parents but manifests a\npreponderance of the characteristics of either parent). (9). The law of\nthe reversal of development (the direction of development may reverse\nand tend towards the starting point). (10). The law of the cessation of\ndevelopment (a protracted cessation of development frequently ensues in\none or the other stage).\n\nThe origin (perhaps rather the distinction) of species is accounted for\nprincipally by the last named law, by means of which Eimer also\nexplains the so-called atavism or reversion. To this law are joined\nother factors, e.g., development proceeding in leaps, as demonstrated\nby Koelliker and Heer; local separation (through migration; prevention\nof fertilization, e.g., the impossibility of cross-fertilization\nbetween certain individual organisms) which Romanes had already opposed\nto natural selection, and crossing.\n\nThe second main division of the book is taken up with a very searching\nand detailed criticism of Weismann. This criticism seems to me entirely\nwarranted; because not only the latter's unintelligible position with\nregard to natural selection (the repudiation of which he seems to\nregard as synonymous \"with cessation of all investigation into the\ncausal nexus of phenomena in the domain of life\") but likewise his\nfanciful theory of heredity, utterly devoid as it is of any support\nfrom actual observation, bespeak an utter lack of qualities essential\nto a naturalist; and the manner in which he ignores his former pupil\nand his labors, because they proved embarrassing to him, is entirely\nunworthy of a man of science.\n\nEimer devotes special attention to \"mimicry\"; and indeed he was forced\nto be very solicitous to dispel this fanciful conception of Darwinism\nwhich radically contradicted his own views. Moreover, the untenableness\nof the mimicry hypothesis must have revealed itself very clearly to him\nin the course of his investigations regarding the coloring of\nbutterflies. Mimicry, as our readers are well aware, consists in this,\nthat living beings imitate other organisms or even inanimate objects;\nDarwinism maintains that this is done for the sake of protection\nagainst enemies. This phenomenon is said to have been produced by\nselection. Those animals that possessed, for instance, some similarity\nto a leaf, in consequence escaped their enemies more easily than others\nand survived, while those that had no leaf-like appearance succumbed;\nwhen this process had been repeated a few times, many animals\n(butterflies) gradually developed that marvelous leaf-like appearance,\nwhich frequently deceives the most practiced eye.\n\nIt appears so simple and natural that one need not wonder that this\npeculiar phenomenon gained many an adherent for Darwinism. But, of\ncourse, it is directly opposed to the views of Eimer; and it is for\nthis reason that he endeavors so assiduously to disprove the error of\nDarwinism in this regard. As the underlying color design of the\nbutterfly Eimer designates eleven longitudinal designs; and the\nexamination of the leaf-like forms leads him to the conclusion, that\ntheir appearance always depends on \"the unaltered condition or the\ngreater prominence of certain parts of this fundamental design.\" There\nis to be observed a shifting of the third band, so that in conjunction\nwith the fourth, which is curved, it forms the mid-rib of the leaf.\nEimer finds the cause of this phenomenon in the alteration of the form.\nThe leaf-like form results from an acumination and elongation of the\nwings, which in turn results from a marked elongation of the rim of the\nfore-wing. And this again is produced by the proportionately greater\ngrowth of one part of the wing-section than of the others.\n\nWith reference to the reason of this growth it is of importance to note\nthat experiments, consisting in the application of artificial heat to\nthe chrysales of the swallow-tail and sailor-butterfly, demonstrated\nthat by this means \"the fore-wing is drawn out more toward the outer\nwing-vein, and the rim of the fore-wing becomes more elongated and\ncurved.\" It is observed, however, that the natural heat-forms of the\nsame genera and species, namely, the summer-forms and those which live\nin the warm southern climate, exhibit, for instance, in the case of\nbutterflies akin to the sailor, the same features, the elongation and\nmore marked curvature of the fore-rim of the fore-wings and the\nconsequent more extended form, that are produced by the action of\nartificial heat. Manifestly this is a matter of vital importance for\nthe solution of the question: heat, whether artificial or natural,\nproduces a difference in growth, which results in a change of form and\ncoloring. There is consequently no room for natural selection or the\nstruggle for existence.\n\nThe leaf-like form is generally associated with the dark, faded colors\nof dry leaves, and when this similarity disappears even bright colors\nappear on the fore-wings. In many cases the resemblance to leaves is\nvery imperfect; different forms of the same species live side by side\nand among them are to be found those, the resemblance of which to\nleaves is extremely slight. All these facts, and especially the\nfrequently recurring retrogression of the leaf-like appearance, justify\nserious doubt regarding the Darwinian assumption, that adaptation was a\nnecessity for the forest-butterflies on account of the protection which\nit provided.\n\nAn eye witness furthermore declares that the butterflies that resemble\nleaves most closely do not always alight on withered leaves, on which\nthey would be almost invisible, but frequently rest on a green\nbackground, against which they show off very clearly, and therefore\ncould not long escape the keen eye of birds. Besides, these butterflies\nare but seldom pursued by the birds, of which there is question here,\nand hence are in no need of protection.\n\nThe longer Eimer devoted his attention to the origin of this\nresemblance the more \"the poetic picture of the imitated leaf\" vanished\nout of sight, and he became convinced that it involved the necessary\nexpression of the lines of development, which the respective beings\nwere bound to follow, and that there was no question of imitation.\n\nApart from the resemblance to leaves, by reason of regular changes of\ncolor, design, and wing-structure, numerous non-related butterflies\noften develop such wonderful similarities--which are not, as hitherto\nsupposed, imitations or disguises produced by selection, but are either\nthe outcome of an entirely independent uniformity of development or, at\nleast, of its consequence--that it must be admitted that external\nsimilarity may arise by different means and in various ways. These\nrelations of similarity are of such frequent recurrence because of the\nlimited number of directions of development in which changes or color\nand design in butterflies may tend. Eimer finds the reason of this\nsmall number of directions, in which development may proceed, in the\nfact \"that the elementary external influences of climate and\nnourishment on the constitution of the organism are everywhere the\ncause of the transformations.\"\n\nAnother important point is the difference of sex. If the butterflies\nare of different sex, the males as a rule exhibit a more developed\nstage of design and color than the females. These frequently present on\nthe upper side the stage of coloration, which the males present on the\nlower side, while the upper side of the males is one stage in advance.\nIt is of special significance that the characters of the more advanced\nsex frequently correspond to those of a related, superior species, and\noccasionally to those of widely separated species. Eimer endeavors to\nexplain male predominance \"by a more delicate and more developed, i.e.,\nmore complex, chemico-physical organization of the male organism.\" Even\nthis development tends toward simplification, the origin of dull-black\ncolors.\n\nThis most interesting question brings Eimer into conflict with another\nDarwinian principle, the so-called principle of \"sexual election,\"\naccording to which the more striking characteristics of the male sex\nbecome strengthened for the reason that females invariably give the\npreference to the males endowed with them, over those that are less\n\"attractive.\" These exceedingly romantic ideas have been often and\ndeservedly repudiated, e.g., even by Wallace only a short time after\ntheir first appearance. Eimer really does them too much honor when he\nagain undertakes, even with a certain amount of respect, a thorough\nrefutation of them, \"as in every regard unfounded.\" It is of primary\nimportance to note here, that in the case of dimorphism of the sexes\nabrupt modifications occur in connection with unilateral heredity. \"It\nis impossible for sexual selection to produce a change of design and\ncolor, which results in the sudden kaleidoscopic formation of wholly\ndifferent designs, as we find actually taking place through the action\nof artificial heat and cold and other factors in nature.\"\n\nThis brings us to a brief consideration of the answer, which Eimer\nproposes to give to the question of the real causes of the formation of\nspecies among butterflies. A precise and clear statement of this\nimportant part of Eimer's theory of Descent, is contained in the\nfollowing extracts: \"The transformation of organisms is primarily\nconditioned by the action of immediate external influences on the\norganisms. The same causes, which produce individual growth, especially\nclimate and nourishment, also produce the organic growth of organisms,\nthat is, transmutation, which is but a continuation in the progeny of\nindividual growth, through the transmission of the characteristics\nacquired during the lifetime of the individual.\"\n\nHence, transmutation is simply a physiological process, a phyletic\ngrowth.\n\n\"The changes, which the individual organism experiences during its life\nin its material, physiological and morphological organization, are in\npart transmitted to its progeny. The changes thus acquired become more\nmarked from generation to generation, until finally they result in a\nperceptible new structure.\"\n\n\"In this process, new or changing external influences undoubtedly\nexercise great activity, but the same influences, constantly repeated,\nmust in the course of time also produce a change in the organisms\nthrough the physiological activity, which is conditioned by them, so\nthat after a long time elapses, a species will have changed even in an\nunvarying environment and will react on new influences in a manner\nquite different from their progenitors; their \"constitution\" has\nundergone a change.\"\n\n\"This organic growth of living beings takes place regardless of the\nactive use of the organs and in many cases remains independent of this\n(Lamarckian) factor of transformation. But use may exercise\nconsiderable influence on the formation resulting from the primitive\norganic growth, by modifying the growth, by restricting it to those\nparts most frequently called into use, or even by depriving other parts\nof the necessary matter (compensation).\"\n\n\"The Lamarckian principle, therefore, offers but a possible and to\ntransformation, the principal cause is to be found in organic growth.\"\n\n\"* * * The organic growth of butterflies is primarily conditioned by\nclimatic influences. * * * The proof is to be found in the facts\nrevealed by the geographical distribution of butterflies, by the\nvariations corresponding to the seasons, and by experiments regarding\nthe influence of artificial heat and cold on development.\"\n\nExperimental proof is naturally of vital importance for Eimer's theory.\nHe cites in this regard especially the experiments of Merrifield,\nHandfuss, Fischer, Fickert, and Countess Maria von Linden. In Eimer's\nown laboratory the latter performed experiments on Papilionides, \"which\nprove in the most striking manner the recapitulation of the\nfamily-history in the individual.\" \"The fact that it is possible by\nraising or lowering the temperature during the time of development to\nbreed butterflies, possessed of the characteristics of related\nvarieties and species living in southern and northern regions\nrespectively, characteristics not merely of color and design, but also\nof structure, is complete irrefragable proof of my views.\"\n\nEimer therefore belongs to the class of naturalists, like Wigand,\nAskenasy, Naegeli, and many others, who reject the purely mechanical\ntrend of Darwinism and recognize an \"immanent principle of\ndevelopment.\" He seeks the essential cause of evolution in the\nconstitution of the plasm of organisms. This very analogy between the\ndevelopment of the family and that of the individual should, in fact,\nconvince any one of this. If Eimer chooses to refer the analogy to\n\"growth\" and to designate the evolution of the whole animated kingdom\nas also a process of growth, there is, strictly speaking, no room for\nobjection. However, there is here a danger, which he does not seem to\nhave guarded against. To designate the whole process as a growth, as\nEimer does, really explains nothing, but merely defines more clearly\nthe status of the problem. For, what do we know of the so-called\nprocess of growth? In truth, nothing, so that very little is gained by\nreferring evolution to organic growth; the problem remains unsolved.\n\nThe most important and correct part of Eimer's conclusion seems to be\nthe establishment of definite lines of development. He has, in fact,\npermanently disposed of the Darwinian assumption of universal chaos in\nevolution, upon which good mother Nature could at will exercise her\nchoice. Fortuitously initiated development is a condition sine qua non\nof Darwinism and Weismannism. For any one, who has studied the work of\nEimer and still adheres to this fundamental error of Darwinism, there\nis no possible escape from the labyrinth into which he has allowed the\nhand of Darwinism to lead him.\n\nIf, on the one hand, Eimer recognizes the immanent principles of\ndevelopment, he, nevertheless, on the other hand, also accords due\nconsideration and ascribes great efficacy to external influences; in\nfact, he represents them as perhaps the more essential factor. Climate,\nnourishment, etc., affect the inner structure, the plasm, transform it\nand thus produce variation which is transmitted to the progeny. But,\nhowever great may be the influence of environment, Eimer seems to\noverestimate it. Indeed, the analogy of \"growth\" should have led Eimer\nto a conception of the true relation between \"internal\" and \"external\"\ncauses. Warmth, air, light, moisture and nourishment, are undoubtedly\nnecessary factors in the process of growth, but they are only the\nconditions which render it possible, and not the causes which produce\nit. The latter are to be found in the individual organism itself. The\nconditions may be ever so favorable and well-adapted for growth, still\nthe organism will not develop unless it bear within itself the power to\ndo so. On the other hand, although it is hampered and may become\nabnormal, it will readily grow even in an unfavorable environment, as\nlong as it retains its inherent vital force. The same is very likely\ntrue of the genealogical growth. Evolution took place in virtue of the\npower inherent in the developing organisms. But only when the\nenvironment was favorable and normal, did the evolution proceed\nfavorably and normally, that is, toward the perfection of the animate\nkingdom.\n\nIt appears as if the internal principle of development were losing\ninfluence and significance with Eimer; but the ulterior reason for this\nis not far to seek. Whoever recognizes the validity of the internal\nprinciple of development, eliminates chance, that stop-gap of\nmaterialism, from evolution, and is lead at once to a supreme\nIntelligence which directs evolution. As soon as it comes in sight,\nhowever, certain persons take fright and turn aside or even turn back\nin order to avoid it. This was the case with Eimer, although perhaps in\na lesser degree. This is sincerely to be deplored, since his theory\nwould have gained in depth if he had but done full justice to the\ninternal principle of development. For the same reason he seems to have\nattacked Naegeli's principle of perfection, another fact which is very\nmuch to be regretted. True, it is as anti-mechanical as it can be and\nhence has gained but few adherents; but it is based on truth\nnevertheless, and will some day prevail in the doctrine of Descent.\n\nIt is perfectly intelligible that the thought of \"perfection\" should\nnot have occurred to Eimer or should have slipped his memory during\nhis observations on butterflies. The fact however, reveals a\none-sidedness which he could have avoided. When the notion of utility\nis rejected--and Eimer rejects it very emphatically in his discussions\non mimicry--it is undoubtedly difficult to arrive at the concept of a\nperfecting tendency. This, however, can in no way mean that this\nconcept should be entirely banished from nature, even as the notion of\nutility cannot be banished. Even if the coloration and design of the\nwings of the butterfly do not reveal utility, other characteristics\ncertainly do reveal it. It is one of the fatal mistakes of Darwinism,\nthat it fails to recognize the possibility of dividing the characters\nand qualities of organisms into two large groups, as I attempted\nto do with more detail, for instance, in my \"Catechism of Botany.\"\nThere I called them (p. 89) \"Autochthon-morphological\" and\n\"adaptive-morphological characters.\" The former reveal no relation\nto utility, they are innate and distinguish the organism from other\norganisms; the latter can be explained by means of certain vital\nfunctions, hence they possess a certain utility and adapt themselves\nmore or less to environment. The former are permanent, the latter\nchangeable. Darwinians regard all the characters of organisms as\nuseful, physiological, and adaptive. If they have been hitherto\nunable to make good this assumption, they appeal to our lack of\nknowledge and console themselves with the thought that the future may\nyet reveal the missing relations. The presence on plants and animals\nof any autochthon-morphological characters means death to Darwinism,\nbecause these can never be explained by means of selection and struggle\nfor existence.\n\nEimer is too much inclined towards the other extreme; he does not admit\nthe existence of adaptive-morphological characteristics. Viewed in this\naspect, his repudiation of mimicry may perhaps also seem somewhat harsh\nand one-sided. In this narrowness of view must also be sought the\nreason for his complete repudiation of Naegeli's principle of\nperfection.\n\nIt is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world there exists\nan ascending scale from the imperfect to the perfect. Every organism is\nindeed perfect in its own sphere and from its own point of view. But\nperfection with reference to things of earth is a very relative\nconcept; many an organism which is perfect in itself, appears very\nimperfect when compared with others. If, then, there is a gradation of\nanimals and plants from the lower to the higher, it is the task of the\ntheory of Descent to explain this gradual perfection. The crude and\naimless activity of Darwinian selection, which necessarily operates\nthrough \"chance,\" can never explain this perfection, which remains, as\nfar as selection is concerned, one of the greatest enigmas of nature.\nFar from solving the enigma, selection but makes it obscurer.\n\nIf, then, one refuses to recognize a directing creative Intelligence,\nwhose direction produces this perfection, nothing remains but Naegeli's\nprinciple of perfection. The outer world with its influences can\ncertainly not produce perfection, hence this power must lie within the\norganism itself. But when one has once brought himself to accept an\nimmanent principle of development, it surely cannot be difficult to\ntake the next step and ascribe to it the tendency towards perfection.\n\nThat Eimer does not take this step, is, to my mind, a mistake, which\nmust be attributed to his one-sidedness, which, in turn, results from\nthe fact that he generalizes too arbitrarily his observations on\nbutterflies and the conclusions which he draws from them. Animals and\nplants certainly possess many characteristics which cannot be explained\nby means of his theory alone. The conclusion will probably be finally\narrived at, that nature is inexhaustible and many-sided, even in the\nlines on which it proceeds to attain this or that end.\n\nOne thing, however, of primary importance is evident from the\ninvestigations of Eimer, namely the proof that the same lines of\ndevelopment may be entered upon from entirely different\nstarting-points, and that the number of these lines is limited. This\nfact is of importance because it enjoins more caution in arguing from\nuniformity of development to family-relation, than has been usually\nemployed since the days of Darwin. The method commonly employed is\nundoubtedly very convenient, but is somewhat liable to be misleading.\nHence, if one wishes to establish the genealogical relationship of\nforms, nothing remains but to set out on the laborious path of studying\nthe development of both; and even then it remains questionable whether\nthe truth will be arrived at. However, he who concludes to relationship\nfrom a comparison of developed forms, is much less likely to arrive at\nthe truth.\n\nIn one point Eimer concedes too much to Darwinism, in the matter of the\nfamous fundamental principle of biogenesis, according to which an\norganism is said to repeat in its individual development the whole\nseries of its progenitors. Although he does not enter upon a\ndiscussion of the principle, it is evident from one passage that he\naccepts it. One is inclined to think that his careful observations and\nexperiments should have convinced him of the contrary. It appears to\nme, at least, that the abundant materials of his observations bear\nevidence radically opposed to the principle. During late years, the\nantagonism to it has been on the increase, and the day is not very\ndistant when it shall have passed into history. It would certainly be\na laudable undertaking to enter upon a thorough investigation of the\nactual basis of the principle.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\nIn every disease, especially in a lingering one, there are times when\nlife's flickering embers glow with an unnatural brightness. Hence, it\nwould not be a all surprising if a similar phenomenon were to be\nobserved in the case of dying Darwinism; for it cannot be doubted that\nits disease is chronic. It has, in fact, been dying this long time.\nCertain indications render it very probable that we are at present\nwitnessing such a phenomenon, for to-day we behold once more a few\nnaturalists stepping before the public in defense of Darwinism. We are\ndesirous of presenting the present status of the Darwinian theory as\nobjectively as possible, hence, since we have hitherto heard exclusively\nanti-Darwinian testimonies--as the nature of the case demanded--we\nshall now lend our attention to a Darwinian. The reader may then decide\nfor himself whether this treatise should not still bear the title, \"At\nthe Death-bed of Darwinism.\"\n\nThe naturalist in question is the zoologist, Professor F. von Wagner.\nIn the \"Umschau\" (No. 2, 1900) he published an article, \"Regarding the\nPresent Status of Darwinism,\" which is highly instructive and important\nin more respects than one.\n\nWe wish, in the first place, to call special attention to the following\nstatements embodied in the article: \"It is not to be denied that in\nserious professional circles the former enthusiasm has considerably\ndecreased and a scepticism is gaining ground more and more, which\nbetrays a widespread tendency towards revolutionizing current theories.\nThe _fin de siecle_ therefore, finds Darwinism not with the proud\nmien of a conqueror, but on the defensive against new antagonists.\" And\nagain: \"It seems, in fact, as if Darwinism were about to enter a\ncrisis, the outcome of which can scarcely be any longer a matter of\ndoubt.\"\n\nTo what outcome reference is made, appears from two sentences in the\nIntroduction: \"Thus it happens that a theory which was once accorded\nenthusiastic approval, is treated with cold disdain or vice versa.\nExamples of this are to be found in the history of all sciences and\ncircumstances seem to indicate that Darwinism is to add another to the\nnumber of these theories.\"\n\nIs not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted? It is most\nsignificant that these words are not written by an opponent of\nDarwinism, but by one who seems to be thoroughly convinced of the truth\nof Darwinism. I am of opinion that it can be no longer a matter of\ndoubt to any one, that the position of Darwinism is hopeless. If this\nwere not true, a Darwinian would be very careful about making such an\nopen and unreserved statement.\n\nWe therefore accept Professor von Wagner's words as a very welcome\nendorsement of what we have constantly maintained. Professor von\nWagner, however, proposes to himself the further question: Whence comes\nthe unfavorable attitude of present-day natural science towards\nDarwinism? A discussion of this question by a Darwinian cannot but be\nof interest to us, and indeed is an important contribution to the\nproblem. With Goette, Professor von Wagner admits that the objections,\nwhich are raised against Darwinism to-day, are the very same which were\nraised from thirty to forty years ago. But when he then proceeds to\nassert that this is not to be explained on the assumption that the\npristine enthusiasm for selection was due to a serious over-estimation\nof that theory, he fails to furnish even a shred of evidence in support\nof his assertion.\n\nAnyone can readily point out that Darwinism explains the totality of\nthe world of organisms by interlinking them, but has generally failed\nto account for the individual case, Wagner admits this as far as the\n\"actual\" is concerned, for it is quite impossible to trace with any\ncertainty the action, in any particular case, of natural selection in\nthe process which results in the production of a new species. At the\noutset it was reasonable to hope, that with the progress of science\nthis difficulty would be solved or at least lessened; but this\nexpectation has not been realized. * * * It is wholly unintelligible\nhow a naturalist can make this statement five hundred years after Bacon\nof Verulam, without drawing therefrom the proper conclusion. This lack\nof logic reminds me strongly of the assertion recently made by an\neminent authority, that the principal cause of the difficulties of many\nnaturalists in matters of religion is their deficient philosophical\ntraining.\n\nWagner's statement implies that, in the case of Darwinism one may in\ndefiance of all established law, actually reverse the methods of\nnatural science. How justifiable and how necessary was it not, then,\nthat even three decades ago Wigand should have written his\ncomprehensive work: \"Darwinism and the Scientific Researches of Newton\nand Cuvier.\"\n\nOrdinarily the scientific (inductive) method proceeds from the \"actual\"\nand attempts to deduce from the \"individual case\" an explanation, which\napplies to the whole. Here, however, we are face to face with a theory,\nwhich, according to the candid confession of an advocate, fails in the\nindividual case, but furnishes a unifying explanation of the whole.\nThis means nothing less than a complete subversion of all scientific\nmethods. Usually a theory is deduced from separate observations\nregarding the \"actual\" but here--and this is what Wigand constantly\nasserted--the theory was enunciated first, and then followed the\nattempt to establish it in fact. One could then rest content and trust\nto the future to establish the theory by producing evidences of the\n\"actual\" in the individual case. But forty years have elapsed since the\nDarwinian hypothesis first became known, naturalists by the thousands\nhave spent themselves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs based\non actual facts, and to-day one of its own advocates has to confess\nthat the endeavor has been a total failure. Instead of drawing the\nconclusion, however, that the theory is unwarranted and that the\ndecrease of enthusiasm for it is therefore a natural consequence, he\ngratuitously enters a flat denial of this inference.\n\nEvery intelligent observer must conclude with absolute certainty from\nthis confession of a Darwinian, that Darwinism is, in fact, not a\nscientific but a philosophic theory of nature.\n\nBut let us proceed to a consideration of the other reasons which Wagner\nsuggests as an explanation of the retrogression of Darwinism. He states\nas a first reason, that scientific research since Darwin \"has amassed\nsuch an abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the principle\nof Descent, that this doctrine has been able, even for some time past,\nto maintain an independent position and to draw proofs of its truth\nimmediately from nature itself, without the intervention of Darwinism.\"\n* * * \"From which it follows as a matter of course, that the question,\nwhether the manner indicated by Darwin for the origin of species is the\ncorrect one, has decreased by no means inconsiderably in significance,\ninasmuch as Darwin's theory could now, if it were necessary, be\nabandoned with less concern than formerly because it could be\nrelinquished without detriment to the doctrine of Descent.\"\n\nIt is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a fact of such\nimportance so superficially. With naive unconcern there appears on the\nface of it the acknowledgement that Darwinism has really not been based\non actual observation but has been enunciated for the sake of the\ndoctrine of Descent. Come what may, this must be vindicated. Other\nmeans are now said to substantiate it, hence the Darwinian crutches may\nsafely be discarded. The principle of action twenty or thirty years ago\nwas therefore: a poor explanation is better than no explanation. I\ncannot understand, how Wagner dares to credit present-day naturalists\nwith such motives.\n\nWhen he then proceeds to say \"that with the advance of the principle of\ndevelopment, new lines were entered upon, which led primarily to the\ncorroboration and empiric demonstration of the doctrine of Descent, and\nnot of Darwinism\"--that the theory of Darwin was consequently neglected\nand, in fact, forced into the background--\"that the labors specifically\nattributable to Darwinism as compared with the theory of Descent, put\nthe former more and more into a false position to the detriment of its\nprestige\"--when, I say, Wagner has marshalled all these considerations\nto explain the present aversion to Darwinism, he is guilty of a total\nsubversion of facts. The true state of the case is the very contrary.\n\nThe credit given by Wagner to the Darwinian theory for stimulating\nresearch, is the very same as I also accorded it. The purpose of this\nresearch undoubtedly was to substantiate not only the doctrine of\nevolution in general, but also the Darwinian hypothesis in particular.\nTo verify this, one need only glance over the various numbers of the\n\"Kosmos,\" the periodical, which Haeckel and his associates established\nfor that very purpose and which continued to publish good and bad\nindiscriminately until some time in the eighties when lack of interest\ncompelled its discontinuance. Wagner therefore misconstrues facts when\nhe asserts that there have been no specifically Darwinian researches.\nSince the thoughts of Darwin first found expression these researches\nhave been most abundant and their results have been consigned to the\nprinter's ink. No doubt--and this is the salient point, which Wagner\npasses over in complete silence--they have been of service only to the\ndoctrine of Descent in general, and in spite of the energetic efforts\nof the Darwinians, they have never led to the ardently desired proof\nfrom facts of the hypothesis of selection. This and no other is the\nstate of the case.\n\nIn view of these vain endeavors, however, intelligent investigators\nhave gradually become perplexed and have turned away from Darwinism,\nnot because they have lost interest in it nor even because they no\nlonger feel the need of it to assist the doctrine of Descent, but for\nthe one sole reason that its insufficiency has become more and more\napparent and that all experiments undertaken on its behalf have made\nthe fact clearer and clearer that the first criticism of the great\nnaturalists of the sixties and seventies was perfectly justified.\n\nIn forming a judgment concerning the whole question it cannot but be a\nmatter of the utmost significance, that men have turned away from\nDarwinism to entirely different theories of Descent. It is a mistake to\nsuppose, as Wagner would have us suppose, that the last decades have\nproduced nothing but generalities regarding the doctrine of Descent.\nFor they have also witnessed the publication of a number of significant\nworks, which aimed at giving a better individual explanation than was\nfound in Darwinism. I need but recall Naegeli, Eimer, Haacke and a host\nof others. The most noteworthy feature of these new views regarding\ntheories of Descent, is the constantly spreading conviction that the\nreal determining causes of evolution are to be sought for in the\nconstitution of the organisms themselves, hence in internal principles.\nThis view, however, is not only absolutely and diametrically opposed to\nDarwinism but completely destructive of it as well.\n\nThe actual circumstances, therefore, are the very reverse of those\npictured by Wagner. Darwinism has been rejected not on account of a\nlack of research but on account of an abundance of research, which\nprovided its absolute insufficiency.\n\nBesides these \"general points of view,\" as he calls them, Wagner finds\ntwo other \"considerations of no less importance\" for explaining the\ndecay of Darwinism. It is an incontrovertible fact, that the hereditary\ntransmission of acquired characters has in no way been proved. On the\ncontrary after it had at first received a general tacit recognition and\nwas postulated by Lamarck, Darwin and Haeckel, it was denied by\nWeismann. Wagner asserts \"that the number of those who have allied\nthemselves with Weismann in this matter is obviously on the increase as\nis naturally the case, since, to the present day not a single\nincontestable case of hereditary transmission of acquired characters\nhas been demonstrated, where as actual facts are at hand to prove the\ncontrary.\"\n\nIt is perfectly evident that the doctrine that acquired characters are\nnot inherited is fatal to Darwinism. Hence Wagner rightly considers its\nascendancy a notable factor in bringing about the decay of Darwinism.\n\nFinally, Wagner briefly indicates that certain new theories necessarily\nexercised an influence on Darwinism. Haeckel and the palaeontologists\nof North America supplemented it with a number of Lamarckian elements\nwithout alteration of its essential principles (the Neo-Lamarckians);\nEimer regards the transmission of acquired characters as an established\nfact, but rejects natural selection as wholly worthless; Weismann, on\nthe contrary, denies the transmission of acquired characters, but\nnevertheless regards natural selection as the main factor in the\nformation of species (the theory of the Neo-Darwinians). Eimer speaks\nof the impotence of natural selection, Weismann of its omnipotence. All\nthis has shaken men's confidence in the trustworthiness of the\nDarwinian principles. This fact we are in no way inclined to doubt, but\nwe must again differ from Wagner with regard to its significance. We\nmaintain that matters had to take this turn, since the reason why\nDarwinism is now meeting with such serious opposition, is to be found\nin its very nature. This indeed should have been recognized forty years\nago instead of just beginning to dawn on men of science at the present\nday. For if acquired characters are not transmitted by heredity,\nDarwinism is an impossibility. Forty years ago Darwinism should have\nrecognized that its first and supreme task was to prove the hereditary\ntransmission of acquired characters, so as to establish itself, first\nof all, on a sound footing.\n\nOne of the most peculiar incidents in this scientific tragi-comedy is\nthe fact that Weismann, the mainstay of contemporary decadent\nDarwinism, attacks with might and main its fundamental assumption, the\ntransmission of acquired characters, whereas Eimer, who is thoroughly\nconvinced that he has proved that doctrine, in his turn attacks\nDarwinism and proves with telling effect the impotence of its\nprinciples. The amused observer can really demand nothing more. He can\nbut rub his hands for joy and cheer on the heated combatants: Well\ndone! On with the struggle! and the last vestige of Darwinism will soon\nhave disappeared.\n\nIf, then, we were to summarize our strictures on the reasons which\nWagner adduces to account for the decay of Darwinism, we would say\nthis: Some of them are unwarranted, others are falsely interpreted.\n\nThere is, however, a third point which is of special interest to us, in\nthe article under consideration; we refer to the view, which there\nfinds expression, regarding the nature and outcome of the present\ncrisis--a crisis, which, as a candid naturalist, Wagner is not in a\nposition to deny.\n\nThis view rests on the entirely gratuitous assertion, \"that the\ndecline, in the esteem enjoyed by Darwinism, is not due to a better\ninsight arising from widened experience, but is primarily the\nexpression of a tendency--a tendency which resulted almost as a\npsychological necessity from the precarious position into which\nDarwinism was forced under the sway of the theory of Descent.\" This\nassertion rests, as stated above, on wholly erroneous assumptions. It\nis a serious mistake, to speak in this connection of tendencies and\neven to brand them as a \"psychological necessity.\" The decline in\nesteem is essentially due to experience, and indeed to experience which\nhas made it certain that Darwinism has everywhere failed.\n\nThe importance of the present crisis in Darwinism is to be restricted\neven further, according to Wagner, by the fact, \"that the real\nobjections, urged against the theory of Darwin, are almost in every\ninstance based on theoretic considerations, the validity of which can\nbe put to the test only in fictitious cases. This manner of proceeding\nmanifestly leads to the inevitable consequence, that the results thus\nobtained can claim no decisive weight against Darwinism. A decisive\ncritique can be constructed only on the basis of experience, and in\nthis connection it cannot be emphasized sufficiently, that, as yet, the\npath to it has been scarcely indicated, to say nothing of its having\nbeen actually pursued.\" The reason for this fact according to Wagner,\nis to be found \"in the numerous and most extraordinary difficulties\nthat arise in the way of the empiric investigation of the theory of\nselection.\"\n\nAfter we have read all this, we instinctively ask ourselves: do we\nactually live at the beginning of the 20th century? Is it possible,\nthat even at this late day the whole structure of scientific method is\nto be subverted in this fashion?\n\nJust consider for a moment, what according to these words is the actual\nimport of the whole article: Darwinism is a unifying explanation of the\norigin of the totality of the world of organisms, but fails in the\nindividual case; in any specified case it is \"almost impossible\" to\ntrace with any certainty the action of natural selection in the process\nwhich results in the production of a new species; that is, Darwinism\nwas enunciated with a complete disregard for inductive method, as an\nhypothesis to explain the whole, and without actual proof in the\nconcrete--a most unscientific procedure. Immediately after, however,\nthe adversaries of Darwinism are asked in all seriousness to produce\nindividual facts in disproof of the theory.\n\nIn the same strain Wagner goes on to say that \"from no point of view is\nour vision so penetrating as to be able to grasp the coherence which\naccording to Darwin pervades the complex course of natural selection.\nWhen men of science take occasion to repudiate Darwinism because of our\ninability to explain satisfactorily any particular case by means of the\ntheory of selection, this inability arises not from the theory of\nDarwin but from the inadequacy of our experience. For as yet the\nempiric prerequisites for an objective judgment regarding the validity\nor futility of the theory of selection are entirely lacking.\" Every\nnaturalist who believes in the inductive method must needs draw the\nconclusion from these naive admissions, that, as Darwinism lacks the\nempiric prerequisites, it should be discarded. Moreover, the demand is\nmade in all seriousness, that, in order to refute Darwinism which has\nnot as yet been established empirically, empiric proofs should be\nforthcoming.\n\nTo my mind, the scientific and logical bankruptcy of Darwinism was\nnever announced more bluntly and ingenuously. Furthermore it must be\nremarked that Wagner's statement, regarding \"fictitious cases,\" is not\neven pertinent. He seems to have no idea of the observations and\nexperiments of Sachs, Haberlandt, Eimer, and a host of other\ninvestigators. The disproof of Darwinism on the basis of scientific\nresearch is an accomplished fact.\n\nA word about the conclusion of Wagner's article, which in view of what\nhas been already said, cannot be a matter of surprise. He maintains\nthat the considerations which he adduces, \"clearly\" prove that there is\nno \"reasonable ground for despairing of the theory of Darwin--; for a\ntheory, which neither proceeds from questionable assumptions, nor loses\nitself in airy hypotheses, but rests throughout and exclusively on\nfacts, need never fear the advance of science.\"\n\nBut a moment ago it was asserted that the theory of selection is\nlacking \"entirely as yet the empiric prerequisites\" and now only\ntwenty-three lines further on, it rests \"throughout and exclusively on\nfacts.\" It is difficult to know what conclusion to come to regarding a\nnaturalist and University professor who can commit himself to such a\ncontradiction. I shall abstain from any comment and let the reader form\nhis own judgment.\n\nDoes this article betoken the death-bed of Darwinism? For my own part I\nrepeat what I said above, that I consider it the most valuable\ncontribution to the characterization of decadent Darwinism that has\nappeared up to the present time. The sooner a theory, which is thus\ntreated and characterized by one of its own advocates, is stored away\nin the lumber-room of science, the better. In view of the sound\njudgment, which is to-day becoming more and more apparent in scientific\ncircles, there is reason to hope that this article of Professor von\nWagner will be additional incentive for many naturalists to break\ncompletely with Darwinism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\nIn the year 1899 Haeckel published a new work, which he intended as a\nkind of testament; for with the close of the nineteenth century the\nauthor desired to put a finishing touch to his life-work.\n\nIn the Preface Haeckel states with very remarkable modesty that his\nbook cannot reasonably claim to present a complete solution of the\nriddles of existence; that his answer to the great questions can\nnaturally be only subjective and only partly correct; that his\nattainments in the different branches is very unequal and imperfect;\nand that his book is really only a sketch book of studies of very\nunequal value. In this way the author naturally gains at once the\nconfidence of his reader who is thus prepared to yield assent when the\nauthor makes pretense to sincerity of conviction and an honest search\nafter truth. The reader's surprise at the contents of the book and at\nthe manner of its presentation is, however, only increased by this\nruse. All modesty has vanished, monistic doctrines are presented as\nabsolute truth, every divergent opinion is contemptuously branded as\nheretical; in short, the book reveals a Darwinian orthodoxy of the\npurest type, with all the signs of blind bigotry and odious intolerance\nwhich the author imagines he discovers in his Christian adversaries. It\nis difficult to see where, in view of such a contradiction between the\nwork and its Preface, there is room for an honest striving after truth.\nPersonally I do not wish to deny Haeckel all honesty of purpose, for it\nis my endeavor to understand the _whole_ man. The one prominent\nfeature of the \"Weltraetsel\" is the fact that, owing to a very marked\ndeficiency in philosophical training, Haeckel has become so completely\nabsorbed in his system that he has lost all interest in everything else\nand takes cognizance only of what suits his purpose. What he lacks\nabove all, is the ability to appreciate even the \"honest\" opinion of\nothers; hence, from the very outset he brings into the discussion that\nbitterness of which he complains in others (in the Weltraetsel he once\nmakes this accusation against me). Notwithstanding all this, honest\nconviction may be present, but if so, it is joined with total\nblindness. But what is to be thought of his search after truth since he\ncompletely ignores his adversaries? For instance, in spite of Loofs'\nattacks, he continues to have his book reprinted without alteration,\nwithout submitting it to revision. The \"Reichsbote\" is perfectly in the\nright when it says: Haeckel, in fact, takes account only of what suits\nhis purpose.\n\nAs regards the contents of the \"Weltraetsel,\" it is not my intention to\nenter here upon a criticism of it but merely to discuss it as\nillustrating the general status of the theory of Descent. It is to be\nnoted, in the first place, that it is really not a scientific book at\nall; for of its 472 pages, the first or \"Anthropological Part,\" with\nwhich alone we are here concerned, occupies only 74 (from pages 27 to\n100), even less than one-sixth of the whole, whereas the \"Theological\nPart\" is almost twice as long. The book is, in fact, rather a\ntheologico-natural-philosophical treatise than a work of natural\nscience. The scientific part is, however, the foundation on which\nHaeckel builds up his natural philosophy, and which he uses as the\nstarting point of his criticism of theology. Hence it is worth our\nwhile to discuss it.\n\nHow then fares it with the anthropological basis of Haeckel's whole\nsystem? As an attentive student of his age the naturalist-philosopher\nof Jena must have perceived the true position of Darwinism, namely,\nthat the foremost naturalists of to-day have no more than an historical\ninterest in it. Since, in accordance with the well known tendency of\nold men to persevere in the position they have once assumed and not\neasily to accept innovations, Haeckel is still an incorrigibly orthodox\nDarwinian, we should naturally expect him to embody in this testament\nsome new cogent evidence of the truth of Darwinism. But nothing of that\nnature is to be found in the book.\n\nThe first chapter of the \"Anthropological part\" is taken up with a\n\"general history of nineteenth century culture,\" in itself a sign of\npeculiar logical acumen, that he should include this and the \"struggle\nregarding world-views\" in the \"anthropological part\" instead of\nembodying it in a general introduction. The remaining chapters treat:\n\"Our Bodily Structure,\" \"Our Life,\" \"Our Embryonic-history,\" \"Our\nFamily-history.\" It is not to be supposed, however, that any arguments\nare here adduced, nothing but assertions; a large part of the chapter\nis taken up with historical sketches, in which Haeckel again proves\nhimself utterly devoid of all appreciation of history and all sense of\njustice. He attributes the decay of the natural sciences to the\n\"flourishing condition of Christianity\" and dares to speak of the\nunfavorable influence of Christianity on civilization. Apart from the\nhistorical sketch, each chapter presents only the quintessence of\nDarwinism, fairly bristling with assertions, which are boldly put forth\nas incontrovertible truths. In view of the author's demand to have at\nleast his sincere love of truth recognized, we can but throw up our\nhands out of sheer astonishment. To illustrate Haeckel's \"love of\ntruth\" let it suffice to observe that in the second chapter he asserts\nthat man is not only a true vertebrate, a true mammal, etc.--which\nindeed is passable--but even a true ape (having \"all the anatomical\ncharacteristics of true apes\"). With a wonderful elasticity he passes\nover the differences. What, indeed, is to be said, when he states as a\n\"fact\" that \"physiologically compared (!), the sound-speech of apes is\nthe preparatory stage to articulate human speech.\" It is so simply\nmonstrous, that even Garner's famous book of ape-speech, cannot surpass\nit. As a third illustration of Haeckel's method of argumentation, if we\nare still justified in speaking of such a thing, we may mention his\nassertion (p. 97) as a \"certain historical fact,\" \"That man is\ndescended directly from the ape, and indirectly from a long line of\nlower vertebrates.\" If, in view of the results of research during the\nlast forty years any one can assert this as a \"certain historical fact\"\nand can still wish to be credited with honest conviction and love of\ntruth, there remains, to adopt Haeckel's own expression, but one\nexplanation for this psychological enigma, namely, intellectual\n_marasmus senilis_, which may very easily have set in with a man\nof sixty-six, who himself complains (p. 7) of \"divers warnings of\napproaching age.\"\n\nThus, the anthropological part of the \"Weltraetsel\" contains nothing\nnew; always the same old story, the same threadbare assertions without\na shred of evidence to corroborate them.\n\nThe remaining parts also contain various scientific assertions, which\nare proposed as facts without being such, but these parts do not\nimmediately pertain to our theme. Suffice it to say that, after reading\nHaeckel's \"Weltraetsel,\" one would be led to think that there is no\nquestion of a \"deathbed of Darwinism,\" but that on the contrary\nDarwinism, as remodeled by Haeckel, is more in the ascendant to-day\nthan ever. Let us judge of its prestige by the reception accorded the\n\"Weltraetsel.\"\n\nOne unaltered edition after the other, thousand after thousand, the\nbook is given to the public. Hence it must meet with approval. It does\nindeed meet with approval, but the question is, from whom? Immature\ncollege and university students will doubtless receive it with\nreverential awe, just as they received the \"Natural History of\nCreation\" twenty-five years ago. Bebel accepts the book as an\ninfallible source of truth, and after him the social democrats and\nfree-church members will add it to the list of their \"body and stomach\nbooks,\" which alone will afford it a respectable clientele, at least in\nnumber. In no one of my \"deathbed articles,\" however, have I as yet\never maintained that Darwinism was decadent in _these_ circles. I\nknow full well, that Darwinism has filtered down into that sphere and\nthere satisfies the anti-Christian and anti-religious demands of\nthousands.\n\nNothing, however, really depends on these senseless blind adherents of\nHaeckel's unproved assertions. We are now intent upon investigating how\nthe world of eminent thinkers and natural science regards the latest\nproduct of Haeckel's fancy. That alone is of importance in ascertaining\nthe real status of Darwinism.\n\nAs regards, in the first place, the other parts of the book, it is well\nknown that all of them were vigorously attacked. Loofs in particular\nexposed Haeckel's theology, according to its deserts, in the clear\nlight of truth, and convicted Haeckel of \"ignorance\" and \"dishonesty;\"\nwhile the philosopher Paulsen made short work of the \"Weltraetsel\" from\nhis own standpoint, (\"if a book could drip with superficiality, I\nshould predicate that of the 19th chapter\"). Harnack also condemned the\ntheological section in the \"Christliche Welt,\" and Troeltsch,\nHoenigswald, and Hohlfeld took Haeckel severely to task on philosophic\ngrounds. The naturalists have thus far maintained silence.\n\nScientific journals, and, I believe, only the more popular ones, pass a\nvarying judgment on the book according to the intellectual bent of\ntheir book reviewers; but no one of the eminent and leading naturalists\nhas publicly expressed his opinion regarding it. They all maintain a\nvery significant silence, which speaks for itself. Now, however, just\nat the proper time a book, _Die Descendenz-theorie_ has appeared\nfrom the pen of the zoologist, Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, in\nwhich Haeckel is severely condemned. (See Chapter IX.)\n\nThe press-notices of the Weltraetsel, which are quoted in the book will\nbe considered presently. It appears that with reference to natural\nscience, only \"laymen\" discuss the book and approve of Haeckel's views.\nThis is a point of great importance since it proves satisfactorily that\nmen of science will have nothing to do with the \"Weltraetsel.\" The\nlarge number of replies would, however, not allow Haeckel's friends to\nremain silent. The most extensive defense forthcoming was a pamphlet\npublished by a certain Heinrich Schmidt of Jena. It cannot be gathered\nfrom his book (Der Kampf um die Weltraetsel, Bonn, E. Strauss 1900) to\nwhat profession the author belongs, hence I am unable to judge whence\nhe derives the right to treat Haeckel's opponents in summary a manner.\nIt is significant to note what class of men, according to Schmidt,\nreceived the \"Weltraetsel\" with enthusiasm and joy. They are August\nSpecht, the free-church editor of \"Menschentum\" and of the \"Freien\nGlocken,\" Julius Hart, Professor Keller-Zuerich, the philosopher and\n\"Neokantian\" Professor Spitzer of Graz, the popular literateur W.\nBoelsche, W. Ule, and a few unknown great men, Dr. Zimmer, Th.\nPappstein, R. Steiner, A. Haese; but stay, I came very near forgetting\nthe great pillar, Dodel of Zuerich. But where is there mention of the\nprofessional colleagues of Haeckel whose testimonies could be taken\nseriously? Under the heading \"Literary Humbug,\" which evidently has\nreference to the contents of his own work, Schmidt then meets numerous\nobjections. Here vigorous epithets are bandied about, as, for instance,\n\"absolute nonsense,\" \"muddler,\" \"foolish and senseless prattle,\" \"idle\ntalk,\" etc.; and from Dodel he copies the words with which the latter\nonce sought to annihilate me: Job, verse 10, \"Thou hast spoken like one\nof the foolish women.\" And he ventures to express indignation at Loofs'\n\"invectives.\" As a compliment to Lasson he declares that he could\neasily conceive of the possibility of an ape ascending the professor's\nchair and speaking as intelligently as he (Lasson); which remark he\nprobably intended as a witticism. He informs his readers that the\ncriticism of Haeckel by men like Virchow, His, Semper, Haacke, Baer,\nand Wigand have been examined by professional specialists and proved\npractically worthless. This statement alone so clearly reveals\nSchmidt's lack of critical faculty and judgment that by it he at once\nforfeits his right to be taken seriously.\n\nThe whole book is nothing more than a collection of quotations from the\nreviews of the \"Weltraetsel,\" interspersed with characteristic\nexpressions like \"idle talk,\" \"nonsense,\" etc., as exemplified above. A\nreally pertinent reply and refutation of objections is entirely beyond\nSchmidt's range; he waives the demand for a direct reply, for instance,\nin the following amusing way (p. 28): \"Two reasons, however, prevent me\nfrom being more explicit: In the first place I do not like to dispute\nwith people who adduce variant readings and church-fathers as proofs\nand can still remain serious. In the second place I would not like to\nfall into the hands of a Loofs.\" In this manner it is indeed easy to\nevade an argument, which for good reasons one is not able to pursue.\nLoofs' criticism is so serious and destructive that it should be of the\nutmost concern to Haeckel's friends to refute it. Since they are unable\nto do so, they content themselves with references to Loofs' caustic\nstyle, which he should indeed have avoided. There are, nevertheless,\ncases in which one must employ trenchant phraseology, and Haeckel\nhimself has given an occasion for it; a dignified style is simply out\nof the question in his case. Haeckel extricated himself with even\ngreater ease, by declaring that he had \"neither time nor inclination\"\nfor reply, and that a mutual understanding with Loofs was impossible\nbecause their scientific views were entirely different. Could anything\nbe more suggestive of the words of Mephistopheles:\n\n    \"But in each word must be a thought--\n    There is,--or we may so assume,--\n    Not always found, nor always sought.\n    While words--mere words supply its room.\n    Words answer well, when men enlist 'em,\n    In building up a favorite system.\"\n\nThere are two other points in Schmidt's book that are of interest to\nus. The first of these is the manner in which the author treats the\nRomanes incident. Romanes ranks, as is well known, among the first of\nHaeckel's authorities. Hence it is a very painful fact that, but a\nshort time before the publication of the first edition of the\n\"Weltraetsel,\" my translation into German of Romanes' \"Thoughts on\nReligion\" should have appeared. From this book it was evident that\nHaeckel and his associates could no longer count this man among their\nnumber since he--a life-long seeker after truth--had abandoned atheism\nfor theism, and died a believing Christian. Troeltsch and the\n\"Reichsbote\" asked whether Haeckel had purposely concealed this fact,\nand Schmidt now explains that Haeckel first became acquainted with the\n\"Thoughts on Religion\" through him towards the end of January, 1900.\nUnfortunately he does not add that since then a number of new editions\nof the \"Weltraetsel\" have appeared, in which Haeckel could have\nexplained himself in an honorable manner. Schmidt has therefore not\nbeen successful in his attempt to clear up this matter.\n\nBut how does he settle with Romanes? He says: \"_We are assured_\nthat the thoughts were written down by the English naturalist George\nJohn Romanes\"; and again: \"The thoughts are published by a Canon of\nWestminster, Charles Gore, to whom _they are said_ to have been\nhanded over after the death of Romanes in the year 1894.\" Then he has\nthe audacity to place Romanes in quotation marks. And finally he\nasserts that they would abide by Romanes' former works as their\nauthority, the more so, because these were not, like the \"Thoughts,\"\n\"published and glossed by a Canon only after his (Romanes') death.\" By\nmeans of all this and of a comparison with the \"Letters of the\nObscurantists\" he wishes to create the suspicion that there might be\nquestion here of forgery. Such an insinuation, (I employ Schmidt's own\nwords) \"cannot be characterized otherwise than as contemptible.\" \"Here\nit is even worse than contemptible.\" I must beg my reader's pardon for\noverstepping the bounds of reserve with these caustic words, although\nthey originated with Schmidt; but really the flush of anger rightfully\nmounts to one's cheeks when a man, from the mere fact that he is a\ndisciple of the \"great\" Haeckel assumes the right to charge Canon Gore\nand indirectly myself with forgery. It is really very significant that\nthese men should have to resort to such base and despicable expedients\nto extricate themselves from their unpleasant predicament. Apart from\nthis, it was very amusing to me personally to think that for the sake\nof my unworthy self, Schmidt should have borrowed from his lord and\nmaster the epithet \"pious,\" which Haeckel in his turn has drawn from\nhis cherished friend Dodel. In all probability they will continue to\nhawk it about in order to bring me into disrepute with the rest of\ntheir kind. The few remarks Schmidt still finds it proper to make\nregarding the \"Thoughts,\" betray his inability to understand the book.\nBut as I stated in the preface it was a difficult book to read and\nunderstand. It is obviously not reading matter for shallow minds. I\nrefer Schmidt to the biography of Romanes, published by his wife, (The\nLife and Letters of G. J. Romanes, London, Longmans, Green & Co.,\n1898), where he will find Romanes' religious development described by a\nwell-informed hand. This development began as early as 1878, hence\nduring the time of his intimate friendship with Darwin. In this book on\npages 372 and 378 Schmidt will also find the words in which,\n_before_ his death, Romanes begged that, if he were personally\nunable to publish the \"Thoughts,\" they should be given to his friend\nCanon Gore after his own death. But why waste so many words on Mr.\nSchmidt, for since all these things must be doubly disagreeable and\npainful to him and Haeckel, he will very probably resort without delay\nto personal insinuation and accuse Mrs. Romanes of forgery.\n\nTo us, however, who thoroughly appreciate the situation, it is a matter\nof great moment that of one of the few really eminent naturalists, to\nwhom Haeckel thought to be able to lay full and exclusive claim, for\nthe last twenty years of his life should have been moving towards the\nChristian faith in his eager search for truth and should die not a\nmonist, but a convinced Christian. Neither did he die an old man, to\nwhom the adherents of monism would certainly have the effrontery to\nimpute feeble-mindedness, but at the early age of forty-six years. Nor\nwas his a sudden deathbed conversion--an impression which Schmidt\nattempts to create (p. 62) in order to be able with H. Heine to\nrelegate the conversion to the domain of pathology--but followed after\nmany years of diligent and honest study and research. The other point\nof which we must treat here, is the manner in which, after the example\nof Dr. Reh, Schmidt attempts in the \"Umschau\" to exonerate Haeckel in\nthe matter of the \"History of the three cliches.\" To begin with, it is\nat the very least dishonest on the part of Schmidt to say that, \"in\ndefault of scientific arguments, theological adversaries have for the\nlast thirty years been using it as the basis of their attacks.\" That is\nuntrue, the \"theological adversaries\" have not had knowledge of it for\nthat length of time. On the contrary Haeckel's own scientific\ncolleagues were the first to discover and publish the matter some time\nin the seventies, and in consequence excluded Haeckel from their\ncircle. Why does Schmidt not mention here the names of Ruetimeyer, His,\nand Semper? Furthermore Schmidt writes as if Haeckel had satisfied his\ncolleagues in the matter of his forgery by declaring soon after (1870)\nthat he had been \"guilty of a very ill-considered act of folly.\" Why\ndoes Schmidt not mention the fact that the weighty attacks of His (Our\nBodily Form and the Physiological Problem of its Origin, Leipzig, 1875)\ndates from the year 1875, five years after Haeckel's forced, palliative\nexplanation? Besides, this incident of the three cliches is only one\ninstance; the other examples of Haeckel's sense of truthfulness are for\nthe most part entirely unknown to his \"theological adversaries,\" who\nhave nowhere to my knowledge made use of them; but _all_ of them\nhave been brought to light and held up before Haeckel by naturalists,\nnamely, by Bastian (1874), Semper and Kossmann (1876 and 1877), Hensen\nand Brandt (1891), and Hamann (1893). Does this in any way tend to\nestablish Schmidt's honesty? (Dr. Dennert has entered into a more\nsearching criticism of Haeckel in his book, _Die Wahrheit ueber\nHaeckel_. 2 Aufl Halle a. S., 1902.)\n\nIn a word, the manner in which the \"Weltraetsel\" was received and in\nwhich Haeckel has been defended by Schmidt, are valuable indications of\nthe decay of Darwinism. I repeat that I am speaking of course of the\nleading scientific circles. Those who hold back are never lacking, and\none cannot be surprised that, in the case of Darwinism, their number is\nconsiderable: for on the one hand, to understand it an extraordinarily\nslight demand is made on one's mental capacity; and on the other hand\nit is a very convenient and even a seemingly scientific means of\nobviating the necessity of belief in God. These facts appeal very\nstrongly to the multitude.\n\nIn concluding this section, we shall quote a positive testimony to the\ndecay of Darwinism. On page 3 of his \"Outlines of the History of the\nDevelopment of Man and of the Mammals\" (Leipzig, W. Engelmann, 1897)\nProf. O. Schultze, Anatomist in Wuerzburg, says: \"The idea entertained\nby Darwin, that the development of species may be explained by a\nnatural choice--Selection--which operates through the struggle of\nindividuals for existence, cannot permanently satisfy the spirit of\ninquiry. Even the factors of variability, heredity, and adaptation,\nwhich are essential to the transformation of species, do not offer an\nexact explanation.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nI have already called attention several times to the fact that\nDarwinism is indeed on the wane among men of science, but that it has\ngradually penetrated into lay circles where it is now posing as\nirrefragable truth. Especially the circles dominated by the social\ndemocrats swear by nothing higher than Darwin and Haeckel. In fact,\nonly a short time ago Bebel publicly professed himself a convert to\nHaeckel's wisdom.\n\nIt is inevitable, however, that light should gradually dawn even in\nthese circles, for it would be indeed strange, if no honest man could\nbe found to tell them the truth regarding Darwinism. This has occurred\nsooner than I dared to hope. This chapter can announce the glad tidings\nthat even in \"social-democratic science\" Darwinism is doomed to decay.\nMuch printer's ink will, of course, be yet wasted before it will be so\nentirely dead as to be no longer available as a weapon against\nChristianity; but a beginning at least has been made.\n\nIn the December number of the ninth year of the _Sozialistische\nMonatshefte_, a social-democratic writer, Curt Grottewitz,\nundertakes to bring out an article on \"Darwinian Myths.\" It is stated\nthere that Darwin had a few eminent followers, but that the educated\nworld took no notice of their work; that now, however, they seemed to\nbe attracting more attention. \"There is no doubt, that a number of\nDarwinian views, which are still prevalent to-day, have sunk to the\nlevel of untenable myths. True, the main doctrine of Darwin--the origin\nof new species from existing ones--is incontestably established, but\napart from this even some very fundamental principles, which the master\nthought he discerned in the development of organisms, can scarcely be\nany longer maintained.\"\n\nIt may be well to remark here, that this was not really Darwin's main\ndoctrine, for it already existed before his time (Lamarck, Geoffroy St.\nHilaire). Darwin's main doctrine is the explanation of the origin of\nspecies by natural selection operating through the struggle for\nexistence. It is therefore the old error repeated. Darwinism is\nconfounded with the doctrine of Descent, of which it is merely one\nform. It is not our intention to derogate in the least from Darwin's\nmerit, which consists in the fact that he gained general recognition\nfor the doctrine of Descent; but that was not his main work. He wished\nabove all to explain the _How_ of Descent; this is his doctrine,\nand this doctrine we attack and declare to be on the point of expiring.\n\nGrottewitz very frankly continues: \"The difficulty with the Darwinian\ndoctrines consists in the fact that they are incapable of being\nstrictly and irrefutably demonstrated. The origin of one species from\nanother, the conservation of useful forms, the existence of countless\nintermediary links, are all assumptions, which could never be supported\nby concrete cases found in actual experience.\" Some are said to be well\nestablished indirectly by proofs drawn from probabilities, while others\nare proved to be absolutely untenable. Among the latter Grottewitz\nincludes \"sexual selection,\" which is indeed a monstrous figment of the\nimagination. There was moreover really no reason for adhering to it so\nlong. It is eminently untrue, that the biological research of the last\nfew years proved for the _first_ time the untenableness of this\ndoctrine, as Grottewitz seems to think. Clear thinkers recognized its\nuntenableness long ago, and surely Grottewitz and the whole band of\nDarwinian devotees as well, could have known that as early as\ntwenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected to a reductio ad\nabsurdum with classic clearness in Wigand's great work.\n\nIt is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon; for decades we behold a\ndoctrine reverently re-echoed; thoughtful investigators expose its\nfolly, but still the worship continues, the Zeitgeist must have its\nidol. It appears, however, as if the Zeitgeist were gradually tiring of\nits golden calf and were on the point of casting it into the\nrubbish-heap. Misgivings arise on all sides; here one class of\nobjections are considered, there another. A closer examination reveals\nthat these are by no means new reasons, based on new researches, but\nthe very oldest, urged long ago and perhaps much more clearly and\nforcibly. At that time, however, the Zeitgeist was under the spell of\nthe suggestion of individual men: it heard and saw nothing but the\ncaptivating, obvious simplicity of the doctrine; but now when the\nsubject begins to be tedious and the discussion lags, the interest\nconsequently abates and the Zeitgeist suddenly grasps the old\nobjections, presented in a new garb, and what was hitherto truth, clear\nand irrefutable, now sinks into the dreary, gray mists of myth. Sic\ntransit gloria mundi!\n\nThis has been the history of Darwinism, and especially of Darwin's\ntheory of sexual selection. What Grottewitz urges against it, was\nadvanced decades ago by other and more eminent men; then people would\nnot listen, to-day they are inclined to listen. Of very special\ninterest is the further admission, that \"the principle of gradual\ndevelopment\" has been \"considerably shaken\" and is \"certainly\nuntenable.\" Grottewitz points out that it has been demonstrated that\nthe progeny of the same parents are often entirely dissimilar, and that\nnew organs very suddenly spring up in individuals even when they had\nhad no previous existence. \"A slight variation from the parent form is\nof no utility to the progeny; they must acquire at once a completely\ndeveloped, new character, if it is to be of any use to them.\" Quite\nright! but this one admission is destructive of the entire doctrine of\nnatural selection. If one accepts saltatory evolution, as for instance,\nHeer, Koelliker, and Wigand did long ago, then, as Grottewitz now\ndiscovers, the difficulty arising for Darwinism from the absence of the\nnumerous intermediary forms which it postulates, naturally disappears.\n\nGrottewitz attributes sudden variation to the influence of environment,\njust as Geoffroy St. Hilaire had already done before Darwin. He\nlikewise repudiates Darwin's doctrine of adaptation and the theory of\n\"chance,\" which is bound up with all his views. \"Darwin's theory of\nchance seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection.\" The\narticle closed with these words: \"There must evidently be a very\ndefinite principle, according to which the frequent and striking\ndevelopment from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from the\nno-longer adapted to the readapted, proceeds. We all of us are far from\nconsidering this principle a teleological, mystical or mythical one,\nbut for that matter, Darwin's theory of chance is nothing more than a\nmyth.\"\n\nHe is most certainly in the right. To place this whole wonderful, and\nso minutely regulated world of organisms at the mercy of chance is\nutterly monstrous, and for this very reason Darwinism, which is\nthroughout a doctrine of chance, must be rejected; it is indeed a myth.\nWe are grateful to Grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed mask\nof science from this myth and expose it before his associates. He\nshould, however, have done so even more vigorously and unequivocally\nand should have stated plainly: Darwinism is a complete failure; we\nbelieve indeed in a natural development of the organic world, but we\nare unable to prove it.\n\nIn the conclusion of the article quoted there is, of course, again to\nbe found the cloven-hoof: by all means no teleological principle! But\nwhy in the world should we not accept a teleological principle, since\nit is clearly evident that the whole world of life is permeated by\nteleology, that is, by design and finality? Why not? Forsooth, because\nthen belief in God would again enter and create havoc in the ranks of\nthe \"brethren.\"\n\nBut however much men may struggle against the teleologico-theistic\nprinciple and secure themselves against it, it is all of no avail, the\nprinciple stands at the gate and clamors loudly for admission; and if\nGrottewitz could but bring himself to undertake a study of Wigand's\nmasterful work, perhaps his heresy would increase and we might perhaps\nthen find another article in the \"Sozialistische Monatshefte\" tending\nstill more strongly toward the truth.\n\nBut what will Brother Bebel with his Haeckelism say to the present\narticle?\n\nAll in all, instead of calling his article \"Darwinian Myths\" Grottewitz\nmight just as well have entitled it \"At the Deathbed of Darwinism.\" May\nhe bring out a series of \"deathbed articles\" to disclose the truth\nregarding Darwinism to his associates.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\nProfessor Fleischmann, zoologist in Erlangen, recently published a book\nbearing the title, \"Die Descendenztheorie,\" in which he opposes every\ntheory of Descent. The book is made up of lectures delivered by the\nauthor before general audiences of professional students, hence is\npopular in form and of very special apologetic value. Numerous\nexcellent illustrations aid the reader in understanding the text.\n\nOne statement in the Introduction characterizes the decided position\nassumed by the author. He says: \"After long and careful investigation I\nhave come to the conclusion that the doctrine of Descent has not been\nsubstantiated. I go even farther and maintain that the discussion of\nthe question does not belong to the field of the exact sciences of\nzoology and botany.\" At the outset, Fleischmann establishes the fact\nthat in the animal kingdom there are rigidly separated types, which\ncannot be derived from each other, whereas the doctrine of Descent\npostulates \"one single common model of body-structure\" from which all\ntypes have been developed. Cuvier in his day, set up four such types of\nessentially different structure; when Darwin's work appeared two more\nhad been added; R. Hertwig postulates even seven, Boas nine (both\n1900); J. Kennel (1893) seventeen, and Fleischmann himself sixteen. In\nconsequence the doctrine of Descent has become more complicated since\nit now embraces sixteen or seventeen different problems, each of which\nin turn gives rise to many subordinate problems.\n\nThe discussion which the author inaugurates regarding the domain to\nwhich the question of Descent belongs, is very well-timed. He forcibly\nand definitely discountenances the method which transfers it to the\ndomain of religion. The question must be decided by the naturalists\nthemselves according to the strict inductive method; that is, the\nsolution must be based on well ascertained facts, without resorting to\nconclusions deduced from general principles. \"Exact research must show\nthat living organisms actually have overstepped the bounds defining\ntheir species, and not merely that they conceivably may have done so.\"\nHence it is absolutely necessary to procure the intermediary forms.\nThis is the foundation on which Fleischmann builds and against which no\nopponent can prevail. Fleischmann first discusses the differences\nbetween the classes of vertebrates; the mammals, birds, reptiles,\namphibians and fish. For if the differences of their bodily structure\ncould be shown to be one of degree and not radical, it could be\nsupposed that the lines of demarcation which now delimitate the larger\ntypes might some day vanish. A single illustration suffices for\nFleischmann's purpose, viz., the plan of structure of the limbs of the\ndifferent classes of vertebrates. The four higher classes are\ncharacterized by a common underlying plan of limb structure, whilst\nfish have one peculiar to themselves. On the other hand it is an\ninevitable postulate of the doctrine of Descent that fish are the\noriginal progenitors of all other vertebrates. Hence the five-joint\nlimbs of the latter must have developed from the fins of fish. This\nderivation was actually attempted but without success, as Fleischmann\npoints out at considerable length. By means of citations taken from the\nwritings of Darwinian adherents, he illustrates the confusion which\neven now reigns among them on this matter. The evolution of the\nremaining vertebrates from the fish is therefore a wholly gratuitous\nassumption devoid of any foundation in fact.\n\nFleischmann further discusses the \"parade-horse\" of the theory of\nDescent. It has been the common belief, especially fostered by Haeckel,\nthat the history of the Descent of our present horse lies before us in\nits complete integrity as pictured in the drawings of Marsh. Here\nFleischmann again proves at great length the insufficiency of actually\navailable materials. Of special importance is his repeated demand that\nnot only individual parts of the animals but the whole organism as well\nshould be derived from the earlier forms. If, for instance, it be\npossible to arrange horses and their tertiary kindred in an unbroken\nline of descent according to the formation of their feet, whilst the\nother characteristics (teeth, skull-structure, etc.,) do not admit of\narrangement in a corresponding series, the first line must be\nsurrendered.\n\nVery similar to this is the case of the \"family history of birds,\"\nwhich as all know, has been traced back to reptiles. It is in this\nmatter that the famous Archaeopteryx plays an important part.\nUnfortunately, however, grave difficulties are again encountered in\nthis connection. This primitive form is a real bird according to\nZittel; and according to the same investigator as also according to\nMarsh, Dames, Vetter, Parker, Tuerbringen, Parlow and Mehnert, it is\ninadmissible to connect birds with a definite class of reptiles.\nHaeckel finds his way out of the difficulty by supplying hypothetical\nforms which no one has ever seen, but which his imagination has\nadmirably depicted as transitional forms. In so doing, however, he\nabandons the inductive method of natural science.\n\nIt is impossible for us to treat at such length all the remaining\nsections of this important book. We may mention in passing that\nFleischmann examines the \"roots of the mammal stock,\" and enters upon a\ndetailed discussion of \"the origin of lung-breathing vertebrates,\" the\n\"real phylo-genetic problem of the mollusks,\" and \"the origin of the\nechinodermata.\" It is evident that he boldly takes up the most\nimportant problems connected with the theory of Descent, and does not\nconfine himself to a one-sided discussion of individual points. As he\ndid not fear to examine thoroughly the famous, and as it hitherto\nappeared, invulnerable, \"parade-horse,\" so neither does he hesitate to\ndemolish the other reputed proof for the doctrine of Descent, e.g., the\nfresh-water snail of Steinheim, the remains of which Hilzendorf and\nNeumayr examined and were said to have arranged in lines of descent\nthat \"would actually stagger one.\" It is important to call especial\nattention to this because the adversaries of the book ignore it. He\nnext shows up the so-called \"fundamental principle of biogenesis\"\naccording to which organisms are supposed to repeat during their\nindividual development the forms of their progenitors (enunciated by\nFritz Mueller and Haeckel). Fleischmann points out the exceptions which\nHaeckel attributes to \"Cenogenesis,\" (that is to falsification) and\nshows the disagreement among contemporary naturalists regarding this\nfundamental principle. Even Haeckel's friend and pupil, O. Hertwig\nsounds the retreat.\n\nThe 15th chapter deals with the \"Collapse of Haeckel's Doctrine,\" which\nis revealed in the fact that \"the practical possibility of ascertaining\nanything regarding the primitive history of the animal kingdom is\ncompletely exhausted and the hope of so doing forever frustrated.\"\n\"Instead of scientists having been able from year to year to produce an\nincreasing abundance of proof for the correctness of the doctrine of\nDescent, the lack of proofs and the impossibility of procuring evidence\nis to-day notorious.\" In the last chapter Fleischmann finally attempts\nto prove on logical principles the untenableness of the evolutionary\nidea.\n\nHe starts from the fact that philosophers use the word development to\ndesignate a definite sequence of ideas, i.e., in a logical order.\n\"Metamorphosis, says Hegel, belongs to the Idea as such since its\nvariation alone is development. Rational speculation must get rid of\nsuch nebulous concepts as the evolution of the more highly developed\nanimal organisms from the less developed, etc.\"\n\nNaturalists use the word in a different sense. Instead of a sequence of\ngrades of being they posit a sequence of transformations; instead of a\nlogical sequence of ideas they posit a transforming and progressive\ndevelopment. Zoology constructs a system of specific and generic\nconcepts, \"an animal kingdom with logical relations.\" Our concepts are\nderived from natural objects, but in reality do not perfectly\ncorrespond to them. The phylogenetic school commits the capital mistake\nof presenting a transformation which can be realized only in logical\nconcepts, as an actually occurring process, and of confounding an\nabstract operation with concrete fact. \"The logical transformation of\nthe concept ape into the concept man is no genealogical process.\" The\nmathematician may logically 'develop' the concept of a circle from that\nof a polygon, but it by no means follows that the circle is\nphylo-genetically derived from the polygon.\n\nBecause the concept of species is variable, the species themselves,\naccording to Darwin, should be subject to a continual flux; whereas the\nreal cause of the variability which he observed lies in the discrepancy\nbetween objective facts and their logical tabulation, in the narrowness\nof our concepts and in the lack of adequate means of expression. He\nthus makes natural objects responsible for our logical limitations.\n\nWith regard to organisms the Descent-school confounded the purely\nlogical signification of the word \"related\" with that of blood or\nfamily affinity. But surely when they speak of the relation of forms in\nthe crystal systems, they do not refer to genetic connection. To-day\nthis interchange of concepts is so general that one needs to exercise\ngreat care if one would avoid it.\n\nThe theory which postulates the blood-relationship of individuals of\nthe same species may be correct, but it is utterly incapable of proof,\nand the same is true in a greater degree when there is question of\nindividuals of the same class but of different species. Since a direct\nproof is impossible, an attempt was made to construct an indirect proof\nby a comparison of bodily-organs. But in so doing the Descent\ntheorizers had to relinquish scientific analysis altogether.\n\nIn conclusion Fleischmann states that he does not mean to discard every\nhypothesis of Descent. He simply gives warning against an\nover-estimation of the theory. In opposition to those who esteem it as\nthe highest achievement of science, he looks upon it as a necessary\nevil. Its proper sphere is the laboratory of the man of science, and\nnot the thronging market-place.\n\n\"The Descent hypothesis will meet the same fate (be cast aside), since\nits incompatibility with facts of ordinary observation is manifesting\nitself. At the time of its appearance in a new form, forty years ago,\nit exercised a beneficial influence on scientific progress and induced\na great number of capable minds to devote themselves to the study of\nanatomical, palaeontological and evolutionary problems. Meanwhile,\nhowever, viewed in the light of a constantly increasing wealth of\nactual materials, the hypothesis has become antiquated and the labors\nof its industrious advocates makes it obvious to unbiased critics, that\nit is time to relegate it ad acta.\"\n\n          *       *       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy own views agree with those of Fleischmann as presented above, except\nin regard to his last chapter. I must, of course, admit that his\ncriticism has discredited the doctrine of Descent as a scientifically\nestablished theory. Hence, as I have always asserted, it must be\nexcluded from the realm of exact science. No doubt people will come\ngradually to see that the theory involves a creed and therefore belongs\nto the domain of cosmic philosophy. All this I readily admit.\n\nNot so, however, as regards the concept of \"development.\" It seems to\nme to be incorrect to regard this as a logical concept only, even with\nreference to organisms. True, the whole zoological system is in reality\nnothing more than a logical abstraction. And in view of this fact one\nmust be on one's guard against confusing a logical transformation of\nconcepts with a genealogical development.\n\nWe must, however, not forget that we possess the wonderful analogy of\nontogeny (individual development) and above all, the fact of mutation\nand of metagenesis. And even if we wish to avoid the error of Haeckel\nand others who find a necessary connection between ontogeny and\nphylogeny, nevertheless the analogy will still entitle us to picture to\nourselves the development of the whole range of living organisms. Such\na representation will, of course, have only a subjective value.\n\nNo doubt, it is logically unjustifiable to argue from the variable\nconcept to the variability of the species. Still there is something\nreal in plants and animals which corresponds to our specific concepts.\nIn some cases the corresponding reality may be so well defined that it\nis not difficult to form the concept accurately; whereas in other cases\nwhere the task is more difficult, the difficulty must be due to the\nobject. Under these circumstances we may safely conclude from the lack\nof definiteness in our concepts to a certain lack of rigid delimitation\nin the organic forms.\n\nThis blending of certain forms suggests the idea of transformation, but\ndoes not furnish definite proof of it. Such proof can be had only by\nthe direct observation of a transformation. And no doubt in certain\ncases a transformation may occur. As regards animals, I may call\nattention, for instance, to the experiments made with butterflies by\nStandfuss, and as regards plants, to the experiments of Haberlandt, of\nwhich I treated in Chapter III. The limits within which these\ntransformations take place are indeed very narrow as are also the\nlimits of those indisputable varieties which naturally arise within an\notherwise rigidly defined species. I am aware that the transformation\nof one species into another has not yet been effected, but the\nabove-mentioned attempts at transformation have nevertheless\ndemonstrated that certain organic forms when subjected to changed\nconditions of life, display certain mutations which clearly show that\nvariability is to be attributed, not, certainly, to the specific\nconcepts, but to the corresponding reality. This observation and\nreflexion, joined with the fact that organisms form a progressive\nseries from the simple to the more complex, and with the observed\nphenomena of individual development, lead me to regard the concept of\nDescent as admissible, and in a certain sense, even probable. But I\nagree with Fleischmann in saying that this is a mere belief, and that\nall attempts to give it a higher scientific value by inductive proof\nhave signally failed.\n\nMy standpoint, moreover, requires me to admit the validity of the\nhypothesis of Descent as an heuristic maxim of natural science. I\nbelieve that we shall be justified in the future, as we were forty\nyears ago, in directing our investigation in the direction of Descent,\nand I do not consider such investigation so utterly hopeless as\nFleischmann represents it. However, I entirely concur with him in the\nopinion that we are here concerned (and shall be for a long time to\ncome) with a mere hypothesis which belongs not in the market-place, nor\namong the world views of the multitude, but in the study of the man of\nscience.\n\nAbove all it must not be mixed up with religious questions. Whether the\nhypothesis will ever emerge from the study of the man of science as a\nwell-attested law, is still an open question, incapable of immediate\nsolution.\n\n          *       *       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is of interest for us to inquire what reception Fleischmann's\nprotest against the theory of Descent has been accorded by his\nassociates.\n\nFleischmann was formerly an advocate of the theory of Descent. He was a\npupil and assistant of Selenka, who was then at Erlangen (died in\nMuenster 1902). He had previously written a number of scientific works\nfrom the standpoint of the Descent theory. In the year 1891,\ninvestigations regarding rodents led him to oppose that theory. During\nthe winter term of 1891-92 he gave evidence of this change in a public\nlecture. Not until 1895 was there question of his appointment to the\nchair of zoology in Erlangen. In 1898 he published a Manual of Zoology\nbased on principles radically opposed to the doctrine of Descent. This\nmanual irritated Haeckel so much that he issued one of his well-known\narticles, _Ascending and Descending Zoology_, in which, after his\nusual manner, he casts suspicion on Fleischmann of having received his\nappointment to the chair at Erlangen by becoming an anti-Darwinian in\naccordance with a desire expressed at the diet of Bavaria. I am not\naware that Haeckel has paid any attention to the work of Fleischmann\nwhich we have just reviewed.\n\nBy its publication, however, the author disturbed a hornet's nest.\nDispassionate, but still entirely adverse is Professor Plate's review\nin the \"Biologisches Zentralblatt,\" while the \"Umschau\" publishes two\ncriticisms, one by Professor von Wagner, the other by Dr. Reh, which\nfor want of sense could not well be equalled. It was the former who\nfurnished material for our sixth chapter and who there displayed such\nutter confusion of thought regarding the inductive method. The same\nconfusion is apparent in his recent utterance in which he observes that\nFleischmann's whole aim is to accumulate observational data, meanwhile\navoiding speculation as far as possible. His criticism is replete with\nbitter personal epithets, e.g., \"reactionary,\" \"mental incompetency,\"\n\"dishonest mask of hypercritical exactness,\" which manifest the\nwriter's inability to enter upon an objective discussion of the\nquestion.\n\nA still more reprehensible position is assumed by Dr. Reh, who censures\nFleischmann for introducing to the general public the question of\nDescent which belongs properly to the forum of science. He claims that\nFleischmann, by so doing, forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing.\nDr. Reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of censure for\nHaeckel's _Weltraetsel_ which was intended for a far wider circle\nof readers. He next appropriates Haeckel's suspicion regarding\nFleischmann which we noticed above, and then adds the entirely untrue\nassertion that the first half of Fleischmann's Manual, written before\nhe took possession of the chair in Erlangen, is written in the spirit\nof Darwin, whereas the second half which appeared at a later date is\nwritten in the contrary spirit. He then takes individual points of\nFleischmann's treatise out of their context in order to execute a cheap\nand nonsensical criticism of them. Haeckel has evidently been giving\ninstructions on the best manner of dealing with adversaries. And very\ndocile disciples they are who imitate his method even to the extent of\ndefaming and abusing their scientific opponents.\n\nBut is not this another plain indication of the decay of Darwinism? Of\ncourse Haeckel recognized at the very beginning of his career that it\nwas necessary to support the theory by means of personal bitterness,\nforgeries and misrepresentations. But if the last surviving advocates\nof Darwinism must needs have recourse to the same disreputable means,\nto what a low estate, indeed, has it fallen!\n\nLet us hope that these last wild convulsions are really the signs of\napproaching dissolution.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n\nIn order to judge of the present status of Darwinism it is of primary\nimportance to note the position assumed by the few really eminent\ninvestigators, who as pupils of Haeckel still seem to have remained\ntrue to him. Among these I reckon Oskar Hertwig, the well known Berlin\nanatomist.\n\nAs early as 1899 in an address at the University on, _Die Lehre vom\nOrganismus und ihre Beziehung zur Sozialwissenschaft_, Hertwig gave\nexpression to views which are very little in harmony with the doctrines\nproceeding from Jena, and which are also put forth in his manual,\n_The Cell and the Tissue_. In that address we read (p. 8): \"With\nthe same right, with which, for the good of scientific progress, an\nenergetic protest has been raised against a certain mysticism which\nattaches to the word Vitality, I beg to give warning against an\nopposite extreme which is but too apt to lead to onesided and unreal,\nand hence also, ultimately to false notions of the vital process,\nagainst an extreme which would see in the vital process nothing but a\nchemico-physical and mechanical problem and thinks to arrive at true\nscientific knowledge only in so far as it succeeds in tracing back\nphenomena to the movements of repelling and attracting atoms and in\nsubjecting them to mathematical calculation.\"\n\nWith right does the physicist Mach, with reference to such views and\ntendencies, speak of a 'mechanical mythology in opposition to the\nanimistic mythology of the old religions' and considers both as\n\"improper and fantastic exaggerations based on a one-sided judgment.\"\n\"My position on the question just stated becomes apparent from the\nconsideration that the living organism is not only a complex of\nchemical materials and a bearer of physical forces, but also possesses\na special organization, a structure, by means of which it is very\nessentially differentiated from the inorganic world, and in virtue of\nwhich it alone is designated as living.\"\n\nHere, then, the distinction between living and non-living nature is\nclearly and definitely expressed, and Hertwig expresses himself just as\ndefinitely when he says (p. 21): \"Whereas, but a few decades ago a\nscientific materialistic conception of the world issuing from a\nonesided, unhistorical point of view, misjudged the significance of the\nhistoric religious and ethical forces in the development of mankind, a\nchange has become apparent in this regard.\"\n\nTo this gratifying testimony against materialism the distinguished\nnaturalist added an equally valuable testimony regarding Darwinism on\nthe occasion of the naturalists' convention in 1900. He there sketched\nan excellent summary of the \"Development of Biology in the Nineteenth\nCentury,\" in which he decidedly opposes the materialistic-mechanical\nconception of life. In so doing he also touches upon Haeckel's\ncarbon-hypothesis, to which the latter still clings, and says: \"That\nfrom the properties of carbon, combined with the properties of oxygen,\nhydrogen, nitrogen, etc., in certain proportions albumen should result,\nis a process which in its essence is as incomprehensible as that a\nliving cell should arise from a certain organization of different\nalbumina.\" Then the speaker is inevitably led to speak of the doctrine\nof Descent and Darwinism.\n\nIn the first place he declares definitely that ontogeny alone, i.e.,\nthe development of the individual being, is \"capable of a direct\nscientific investigation.\" On the other hand we move in the domain of\nhypotheses in dealing with the further question: \"How have the species\nof organisms living to-day originated in the course of the world's\nhistory?\" This is a very valuable admission in view of Haeckel's\ndogmatic assertion that the descent of man from the ape is a \"certain\nhistorical fact.\" Very moderate and pertinent are also the further\nwords of the speaker: \"Of course, a philosophically trained\ninvestigator will regard it as axiomatic that the organisms which\ninhabit our earth to-day did not exist in their present form in earlier\nperiods of the earth and that they had to pass through a process of\ndevelopment, beginning with the simplest forms.\"\n\n\"But in the attempt to outline in detail the particular form in which a\nspecies of animals of our day existed in remote antiquity, we lose the\nsafe ground of experience. For out of the countless millions of\norganisms, that lived in earlier periods of the earth, the duration of\nwhich is measured by millions of years, only scanty skeleton remains\nhave by way of exception been preserved in a fossil state. From these\nnaturally but a very imperfect and hypothetical representation can be\nformed of the soft bodies with which they were once clothed. And even\nthen it remains forever doubtful whether the progeny of the prehistoric\ncreature, the scant remains of which we study, has not become entirely\nextinct, so that it can in no way be regarded as the progenitor of any\ncreature living at present.\" I should like to know wherein this differs\nradically from Fleischmann's contention in his \"Descendenztheorie\" (p.\n10.) For we find stated here what Fleischmann emphasizes so much, viz.,\nthat with the problem of Descent we leave the domain of experience. It\nis worthy of special note in this connection that Hertwig likewise\nevidently regards as the sole really empirically and inductively\nserviceable proof of Descent, that which is drawn from palaeontology,\nfrom prehistoric animal and plant remains. He makes not the least\nmention of the indirect proofs taken from ontogenetic development or\ncomparative anatomy, to which the Darwinians and advocates of Descent\nlove so much to appeal, because they feel that the real inductive proof\nis lacking and totally fails to sustain their position. Hertwig next\npoints out that the problem of Descent stirred scientific as well as\nlay circles twice during the past century. He then pays Lamarck and\nDarwin the necessary tribute, at which we cannot take offense since he\nwas reared in the Darwinian atmosphere of Jena. I also willingly admit\nthat Darwinism served science as a \"powerful ferment,\" even if I must\nemphasize just as decidedly how harmful it was that this \"ferment\" was\nintroduced into lay circles at an unseasonable time by the apostles of\nmaterialism. For while it was very well adapted to bring about in\neducated circles a fermentation which produced beneficial results, in\nuncritical lay-circles this ferment produced nothing but a corruption\nof world-views.\n\nHertwig then designates \"Struggle for Existence,\" Survival of the\nFittest, and Selection, as \"very indefinite expressions.\" \"With too\ngeneral terms, one does not explain the individual case or produces\nonly the appearance of an explanation whereas in every case the true\ncausative relations remain in the dark. But it is the duty of\nscientific investigation to establish for each observed effect the\nprevenient cause, or more correctly, since nothing results from a\nsingle cause, to discover the various causes.\"\n\n\"The origin of the world of organisms from natural causes, however, is\ncertainly an unusually complicated and difficult problem. It is just as\nlittle capable of being solved by a single magic formula as every\ndisease is of yielding to a panacea. By the very act of proclaiming the\nomnipotence of natural selection, Weismann found he was forced to the\nadmission that: \"as a rule we cannot furnish the proof that a definite\nadaptation has originated through natural selection,\" in other words:\nWe know nothing in reality of the complexity of causes which has\nproduced the given phenomenon. So we may on the contrary, with Spencer,\nspeak of the \"Impotence of Natural Selection.\"\"\n\n\"In this scientific struggle with which the past century closed, it\nseems necessary to distinguish between the doctrine of evolution and\nthe theory of selection. They are based on entirely different\nprinciples. For with Huxley we can say: \"Even if the Darwinian\nhypothesis were blown away, the doctrine of Evolution would remain\nstanding where it stood.\" In it we possess an acquisition of our\ncentury which rests on facts, and which undoubtedly ranks amongst its\ngreatest.\"\n\nThis last sentence affirms exactly what I have repeatedly asserted: the\ndoctrine of Descent remains, Darwinism passes away. Hertwig then is\ndecidedly of opinion that Darwinism entirely fails in the individual\ncase because in its application the basis of experience vanishes.\nIndeed, according to him, phylogeny is not at all capable of direct\nscientific investigation. These are all important admissions which one\nwould certainly have considered impossible twenty years ago; they\nunequivocally indicate the decline of Darwinian views, and in a certain\nway also harmonize with Fleischmann's work.\n\nTrue, Hertwig still clings to the thought of Descent, but apparently no\nlonger as to a conclusion of natural science. This appears from the\nassertion: \"Ontogeny alone is capable of a direct scientific (he\nevidently speaks of natural science) investigation,\" and from the other\nstatement that a _philosophically_ trained investigator will accept it\n(Descent) as axiomatic although it belongs to the domain of hypothesis.\nWhat else does this mean but that: We have no specific knowledge of\nDescent but we believe in it. In short, this is not natural science but\nnatural philosophy; it forms no constituent part of our certain\nknowledge of nature but it is one aspect of our world-view.\n\nAll the above-quoted assertions of Hertwig are calm and well-considered\nand show a decided deviation from the Darwinian position. Above all we\nare pleased to note that he appropriates Spencer's phrase regarding the\n\"Impotence of Natural Selection\" and that in the citation from Huxley\nhe at least admits the possibility that the Darwinian doctrine will be\n\"wafted away.\"\n\nIt is also proper to mention here the fact that in another place\nHertwig no longer recognizes so fully the dogma set up by Fritz Mueller\nand Haeckel which is so closely bound up with Darwinism. I mean the\nso-called \"biogenetic principle\" according to which the individual\norganism is supposed to repeat in its development the development of\nthe race during the course of ages.\n\nIn his book: \"The Cell and the Tissue\" (Die Zelle und die Gewebe, II.\nJena 1898, p. 273) Hertwig says: \"We must drop the expression:\n'repetition of forms of extinct ancestors' and employ instead:\nrepetition of forms which accord with the laws of organic development\nand lead from the simple to the complex. We must lay special emphasis\non the point that in the embryonic forms even as in the developed\nanimal forms general laws of the development of the organized\nbody-substance find expression.\"\n\nAny one can subscribe to these statements; in truth they contain\nsomething totally different from the \"biogenetic principle\"; for\nHaeckel has really no interest in so general a truth, but is intent\nonly upon a proof of Descent.\n\nHertwig continues: \"In order to make our train of thought clear, let us\ntake the egg-cell. Since the development of every organism begins with\nit, the primitive condition is in no way recapitulated from the time\nwhen perhaps only single-celled amoebas existed on our planet. For\naccording to our theory the egg-cell, for instance, of a now extant\nmammal is no simple and indifferent, purposeless structure, as it is\noften represented, (as according to Haeckel's \"biogenetic principle\" it\nwould necessarily be); we see in it, in fact, the extraordinarily\ncomplex end-product of a very long historic process of development,\nthrough which the organic substance has passed since that hypothetical\nepoch of single-celled organisms.\"\n\n\"If the eggs of a mammal now differ very essentially from those of a\nreptile and of an amphibian because in their organization they\nrepresent the beginnings only of mammals, even as these represent only\nthe beginnings of reptiles and amphibians, by how much more must they\ndiffer from those hypothetical single-celled amoebas which could as yet\nshow no other characteristics than to reproduce amoebas of their own\nkind.\"\n\nThis is a view which has frequently been clearly expressed by\nanti-Darwinians: The egg-cells of the various animals are in themselves\nfundamentally different and can therefore have nothing in common but\nsimilarity of structure. In opposition to Hertwig, Haeckel in his\nsuperficial way deduces from it an internal similarity as well. After a\nfew polite bows before his old teacher, Haeckel, Hertwig thus\nsummarizes his view: \"Ontogenetic (that is, those stages in the\nindividual development) stages therefore give us only a greatly changed\npicture of the phylogenetic (i.e., genealogical) stages as they may\nonce have existed in primitive ages, but do not correspond to them in\ntheir actual content.\" This is a very resigned position, very far\nremoved from Haeckel's certainty and orthodoxy.\n\nTo sum up: O. Hertwig has become a serious heretic in matters\nDarwinian. Will Haeckel, in his usual manner try to cast suspicion on\nHertwig also? For Haeckel himself says (Free Science and Free Doctrine,\nStuttgart, 1878, p. 85): \"Since I am not bound by fear to the Berlin\nTribunal of Science or by anxieties regarding the loss of influential\nBerlin connections, as are most of my like-minded colleagues, I do not\nhesitate here as elsewhere to express my honest conviction, frankly and\nfreely, regardless of the anger which perhaps real or pretended privy\ncouncillors in Berlin may feel upon hearing the unadorned truth.\"\n\nVerily, it is a matter of suspense to know whether his school will now\npour forth their wrath upon O. Hertwig, or whether finally the\ndiscovery will not be made in Jena that Hertwig secretly possessed\nhimself of his position in Berlin, in the same manner as Fleischmann\nobtained his at Erlangen, viz., by a promise of desertion from\nDarwinism.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nWe may conveniently summarize what we have said in the foregoing\nchapters in the following statement: The theory of Descent is almost\nuniversally recognized to-day by naturalists as a working hypothesis.\nStill, in spite of assertions to the contrary, no conclusive proof of\nit has as yet been forthcoming. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that\nthe theory provides us with an intelligible explanation of a series of\nproblems and facts which cannot be so well explained on other grounds.\n\nOn the other hand, Darwinism, i.e., the theory of Natural Selection by\nmeans of the Struggle for Existence, is being pushed to the wall all\nalong the line. The bulk of naturalists no longer recognizes its\nvalidity, and even those who have not yet entirely discarded it, are at\nleast forced to admit that the Darwinian explanation now possesses a\nvery subordinate significance.\n\nIn the place of Darwinian principles, new ideas are gradually winning\ngeneral acceptance, which, while they are in harmony with the\nprinciples of adaptation and use, (Lamarck) enunciated before the time\nof Darwin, nevertheless attribute a far-reaching importance to _internal\nforces of development_. These new conceptions necessarily involve\nthe admission that _Evolution has not been a purely mechanical\nprocess_.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOK OF THE DAY\n\n_Science and Christianity_\n\n_By F. BETTEX_\n\n_Translated from the German_\n\n\nThe author among other things says in the preface: I wish to make clear\nto my readers how little real science is hidden behind the fine phrases\nand sounding words or the infidel, and how little he himself understands\nof the material creation which he affirms to be the only one.... The\nChristian and Biblical conception of the universe is more logical, more\nharmonious, more in accordance with facts, therefore, more scientific\nthan all philosophies, all systems, materialistic and atheistic.\nContents of the book:\n\n    Chapter   I. Progress\n    Chapter  II. Evolution and Modern Science\n    Chapter III. Christians and Science\n    Chapter  IV. Science\n    Chapter   V. Materialism\n\nOne of the many favorable reviews: It is a view of much scope, and so\nfar as it attempts reconciliation between science and christianity,\nis eminently successful. There can be no doubt that at present, when\nthere is so pronounced a disposition to follow every fad in science,\nespecially if it opposes the Bible, such a book should have a wide\nreading and is adapted to accomplish much good.\n\n\n_Price $1.50_\n\nGERMAN LITERARY BOARD,\nBurlington, Iowa","title":"At the Deathbed of Darwinism: A Series of Papers","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":33499}