{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2927/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2927","id":"gutenberg_2927","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2927","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"This eBook was converted to HTML, with additional editing, by Jose Menendez\nfrom the text edition produced by Amy E. Zelmer.\n\n\n\n\nThe Darwinian Hypothesis*\n\nby Thomas H. Huxley\n\n\n\nDARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.\n\n\nTHERE is a growing immensity in the speculations of science to which no\nhuman thing or thought at this day is comparable. Apart from the\nresults which science brings us home and securely harvests, there is an\nexpansive force and latitude in its tentative efforts, which lifts us\nout of ourselves and transfigures our mortality. We may have a\npreference for moral themes, like the Homeric sage, who had seen and\nknown much:\u2014\n\n     \u201cCities of men\n     And manners, climates, councils, governments\u201d;\n\nyet we must end by confession that\n\n     \u201cThe windy ways of men\n     Are but dust which rises up\n     And is lightly laid again,\u201d\n\nin comparison with the work of nature, to which science testifies, but\nwhich has no boundaries in time or space to which science can\napproximate.\n\nThere is something altogether out of the reach of science, and yet the\ncompass of science is practically illimitable. Hence it is that from\ntime to time we are startled and perplexed by theories which have no\nparallel in the contracted moral world; for the generalizations of\nscience sweep on in ever-widening circles, and more aspiring flights,\nthrough a limitless creation. While astronomy, with its telescope,\nranges beyond the known stars, and physiology, with its microscope, is\nsubdividing infinite minutiae, we may expect that our historic\ncenturies may be treated as inadequate counters in the history of the\nplanet on which we are placed. We must expect new conceptions of the\nnature and relations of its denizens, as science acquires the materials\nfor fresh generalizations; nor have we occasion for alarms if a highly\nadvanced knowledge, like that of the eminent Naturalist before us,\nconfronts us with an hypothesis as vast as it is novel. This hypothesis\nmay or may not be sustainable hereafter; it may give way to something\nelse, and higher science may reverse what science has here built up\nwith so much skill and patience, but its sufficiency must be tried by\nthe tests of science alone, if we are to maintain our position as the\nheirs of Bacon and the acquitters of Galileo. We must weigh this\nhypothesis strictly in the controversy which is coming, by the only\ntests which are appropriate, and by no others whatsoever.\n\nThe hypothesis to which we point, and of which the present work of Mr.\nDarwin is but the preliminary outline, may be stated in his own\nlanguage as follows:\u2014\u201cSpecies originated by means of natural selection,\nor through the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for\nlife.\u201d To render this thesis intelligible, it is necessary to interpret\nits terms. In the first place, what is a species? The question is a\nsimple one, but the right answer to it is hard to find, even if we\nappeal to those who should know most about it. It is all those animals\nor plants which have descended from a single pair of parents; it is the\nsmallest distinctly definable group of living organisms; it is an\neternal and immutable entity; it is a mere abstraction of the human\nintellect having no existence in nature. Such are a few of the\nsignifications attached to this simple word which may be culled from\nauthoritative sources; and if, leaving terms and theoretical subtleties\naside, we turn to facts and endeavour to gather a meaning for\nourselves, by studying the things to which, in practice, the name of\nspecies is applied, it profits us little. For practice varies as much\nas theory. Let the botanist or the zoologist examine and describe the\nproductions of a country, and one will pretty certainly disagree with\nthe other as to the number, limits, and definitions of the species into\nwhich he groups the very same things. In these islands, we are in the\nhabit of regarding mankind as of one species, but a fortnight\u2019s steam\nwill land us in a country where divines and savants, for once in\nagreement, vie with one another in loudness of assertion, if not in\ncogency of proof, that men are of different species; and, more\nparticularly, that the species negro is so distinct from our own that\nthe Ten Commandments have actually no reference to him. Even in the\ncalm region of entomology, where, if anywhere in this sinful world,\npassion and prejudice should fail to stir the mind, one learned\ncoleopterist will fill ten attractive volumes with descriptions of\nspecies of beetles, nine-tenths of which are immediately declared by\nhis brother beetle-mongers to be no species at all.\n\nThe truth is that the number of distinguishable living creatures almost\nsurpasses imagination. At least a hundred thousand such kinds of\ninsects alone have been described and may be identified in collections,\nand the number of separable kinds of living things is underestimated at\nhalf a million. Seeing that most of these obvious kinds have their\naccidental varieties, and that they often shade into others by\nimperceptible degrees, it may well be imagined that the task of\ndistinguishing between what is permanent and what fleeting, what is a\nspecies and what a mere variety, is sufficiently formidable.\n\nBut is it not possible to apply a test whereby a true species may be\nknown from a mere variety? Is there no criterion of species? Great\nauthorities affirm that there is\u2014that the unions of members of the same\nspecies are always fertile, while those of distinct species are either\nsterile, or their offspring, called hybrids, are so. It is affirmed not\nonly that this is an experimental fact, but that it is a provision for\nthe preservation of the purity of species. Such a criterion as this\nwould be invaluable; but, unfortunately, not only is it not obvious how\nto apply it in the great majority of cases in which its aid is needed,\nbut its general validity is stoutly denied. The Hon. and Rev. Mr.\nHerbert, a most trustworthy authority, not only asserts as the result\nof his own observations and experiments that many hybrids are quite as\nfertile as the parent species, but he goes so far as to assert that the\nparticular plant _Crinum capense_ is much more fertile when crossed by\na distinct species than when fertilised by its proper pollen! On the\nother hand, the famous Gaertner, though he took the greatest pains to\ncross the primrose and the cowslip, succeeded only once or twice in\nseveral years; and yet it is a well-established fact that the primrose\nand the cowslip are only varieties of the same kind of plant. Again,\nsuch cases as the following are well established. The female of species\nA, if crossed with the male of species B, is fertile; but, if the\nfemale of B is crossed with the male of A, she remains barren. Facts of\nthis kind destroy the value of the supposed criterion.\n\nIf, weary of the endless difficulties involved in the determination of\nspecies, the investigator, contenting himself with the rough practical\ndistinction of separable kinds, endeavours to study them as they occur\nin nature\u2014to ascertain their relations to the conditions which surround\nthem, their mutual harmonies and discordances of structure, the bond of\nunion of their parts and their past history, he finds himself,\naccording to the received notions, in a mighty maze, and with, at most,\nthe dimmest adumbration of a plan. If he starts with any one clear\nconviction, it is that every part of a living creature is cunningly\nadapted to some special use in its life. Has not his Paley told him\nthat that seemingly useless organ, the spleen, is beautifully adjusted\nas so much packing between the other organs? And yet, at the outset of\nhis studies, he finds that no adaptive reason whatsoever can be given\nfor one-half of the peculiarities of vegetable structure; he also\ndiscovers rudimentary teeth, which are never used, in the gums of the\nyoung calf and in those of the foetal whale; insects which never bite\nhave rudimental jaws, and others which never fly have rudimental wings;\nnaturally blind creatures have rudimental eyes; and the halt have\nrudimentary limbs. So, again, no animal or plant puts on its perfect\nform at once, but all have to start from the same point, however\nvarious the course which each has to pursue. Not only men and horses,\nand cats and dogs, lobsters and beetles, periwinkles and mussels, but\neven the very sponges and animalcules commence their existence under\nforms which are essentially undistinguishable; and this is true of all\nthe infinite variety of plants. Nay, more, all living beings march side\nby side along the high road of development, and separate the later the\nmore like they are; like people leaving church, who all go down the\naisle, but having reached the door some turn into the parsonage, others\ngo down the village, and others part only in the next parish. A man in\nhis development runs for a little while parallel with, though never\npassing through, the form of the meanest worm, then travels for a space\nbeside the fish, then journeys along with the bird and the reptile for\nhis fellow travellers; and only at last, after a brief companionship\nwith the highest of the four-footed and four-handed world, rises into\nthe dignity of pure manhood. No competent thinker of the present day\ndreams of explaining these indubitable facts by the notion of the\nexistence of unknown and undiscoverable adaptations to purpose. And we\nwould remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by\nauthority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of\nfinal causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more\nstrongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking\nof such cases, says (_On the Nature of Limbs_, pp. 39, 40): \u201cI think it\nwill be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to\nsatisfy all the conditions of the problem.\u201d\n\nBut, if the doctrine of final causes will not help us to comprehend the\nanomalies of living structure, the principle of adaptation must surely\nlead us to understand why certain living beings are found in certain\nregions of the world and not in others. The palm, as we know, will not\ngrow in our climate, nor the oak in Greenland. The white bear cannot\nlive where the tiger thrives, nor _vice versa_, and the more the\nnatural habits of animal and vegetable species are examined, the more\ndo they seem, on the whole, limited to particular provinces. But when\nwe look into the facts established by the study of the geographical\ndistribution of animals and plants it seems utterly hopeless to attempt\nto understand the strange and apparently capricious relations which\nthey exhibit. One would be inclined to suppose _a priori_ that every\ncountry must be naturally peopled by those animals that are fittest to\nlive and thrive in it. And yet how, on this hypothesis, are we to\naccount for the absence of cattle in the Pampas of South America, when\nthose parts of the New World were discovered? It is not that they were\nunfit for cattle, for millions of cattle now run wild there; and the\nlike holds good of Australia and New Zealand. It is a curious\ncircumstance, in fact, that the animals and plants of the Northern\nHemisphere are not only as well adapted to live in the Southern\nHemisphere as its own autochthones, but are in many cases absolutely\nbetter adapted, and so overrun and extirpate the aborigines. Clearly,\ntherefore, the species which naturally inhabit a country are not\nnecessarily the best adapted to its climate and other conditions. The\ninhabitants of islands are often distinct from any other known species\nof animal or plants (witness our recent examples from the work of Sir\nEmerson Tennent, on Ceylon), and yet they have almost always a sort of\ngeneral family resemblance to the animals and plants of the nearest\nmainland. On the other hand, there is hardly a species of fish, shell,\nor crab common to the opposite sides of the narrow isthmus of Panama.\nWherever we look, then, living nature offers us riddles of difficult\nsolution, if we suppose that what we see is all that can be known of\nit.\n\nBut our knowledge of life is not confined to the existing world.\nWhatever their minor differences, geologists are agreed as to the vast\nthickness of the accumulated strata which compose the visible part of\nour earth, and the inconceivable immensity of the time of whose lapse\nthey are the imperfect, but the only accessible witnesses. Now,\nthroughout the greater part of this long series of stratified rocks are\nscattered, sometimes very abundantly, multitudes of organic remains,\nthe fossilized exuviae of animals and plants which lived and died while\nthe mud of which the rocks are formed was yet soft ooze, and could\nreceive and bury them. It would be a great error to suppose that these\norganic remains were fragmentary relics. Our museums exhibit fossil\nshells of immeasurable antiquity, as perfect as the day they were\nformed, whole skeletons without a limb disturbed\u2014nay, the changed\nflesh, the developing embryos, and even the very footsteps of primeval\norganisms. Thus the naturalist finds in the bowels of the earth species\nas well defined as, and in some groups of animals more numerous than,\nthose that breathe the upper air. But, singularly enough, the majority\nof these entombed species are wholly distinct from those that now live.\nNor is this unlikeness without its rule and order. As a broad fact, the\nfurther we go back in time the less the buried species are like\nexisting forms; and the further apart the sets of extinct creatures are\nthe less they are like one another. In other words, there has been a\nregular succession of living beings, each younger set being in a very\nbroad and general sense somewhat more like those which now live.\n\nIt was once supposed that this succession had been the result of vast\nsuccessive catastrophes, destructions, and re-creations _en masse_; but\ncatastrophes are now almost eliminated from geological, or at least\npalaeontological speculation; and it is admitted on all hands that the\nseeming breaks in the chain of being are not absolute, but only\nrelative to our imperfect knowledge; that species have replaced\nspecies, not in assemblages, but one by one; and that, if it were\npossible to have all the phenomena of the past presented to us, the\nconvenient epochs and formations of the geologist, though having a\ncertain distinctness, would fade into one another with limits as\nundefinable as those of the distinct and yet separable colours of the\nsolar spectrum.\n\nSuch is a brief summary of the main truths which have been established\nconcerning species. Are these truths ultimate and irresolvable facts,\nor are their complexities and perplexities the mere expressions of a\nhigher law?\n\nA large number of persons practically assume the former position to be\ncorrect. They believe that the writer of the Pentateuch was empowered\nand commissioned to teach us scientific as well as other truth, that\nthe account we find there of the creation of living things is simply\nand literally correct, and that anything which seems to contradict it\nis, by the nature of the case, false. All the phenomena which have been\ndetailed are, on this view, the immediate product of a creative fiat\nand consequently are out of the domain of science altogether.\n\nWhether this view prove ultimately to be true or false, it is, at any\nrate, not at present supported by what is commonly regarded as logical\nproof, even if it be capable of discussion by reason; and hence we\nconsider ourselves at liberty to pass it by, and to turn to those views\nwhich profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and therefore admit\nof being argued to their consequences. And we do this with the less\nhesitation as it so happens that those persons who are practically\nconversant with the facts of the case (plainly a considerable\nadvantage) have always thought fit to range themselves under the latter\ncategory.\n\nThe majority of these competent persons have up to the present time\nmaintained two positions,\u2014the first, that every species is, within\ncertain defined or definable limits, fixed and incapable of\nmodification; the second, that every species was originally produced by\na distinct creative act. The second position is obviously incapable of\nproof or disproof, the direct operations of the Creator not being\nsubjects of science; and it must therefore be regarded as a corollary\nfrom the first, the truth or falsehood of which is a matter of\nevidence. Most persons imagine that the arguments in favour of it are\noverwhelming; but to some few minds, and these, it must be confessed,\nintellects of no small power and grasp of knowledge, they have not\nbrought conviction. Among these minds, that of the famous naturalist\nLamarck, who possessed a greater acquaintance with the lower forms of\nlife than any man of his day, Cuvier not excepted, and was a good\nbotanist to boot, occupies a prominent place.\n\nTwo facts appear to have strongly affected the course of thought of\nthis remarkable man\u2014the one, that finer or stronger links of affinity\nconnect all living beings with one another, and that thus the highest\ncreature grades by multitudinous steps into the lowest; the other, that\nan organ may be developed in particular directions by exerting itself\nin particular ways, and that modifications once induced may be\ntransmitted and become hereditary. Putting these facts together,\nLamarck endeavoured to account for the first by the operation of the\nsecond. Place an animal in new circumstances, says he, and its needs\nwill be altered; the new needs will create new desires, and the attempt\nto gratify such desires will result in an appropriate modification of\nthe organs exerted. Make a man a blacksmith, and his brachial muscles\nwill develop in accordance with the demands made upon them, and in like\nmanner, says Lamarck, \u201cthe efforts of some short-necked bird to catch\nfish without wetting himself have, with time and perseverance, given\nrise to all our herons and long-necked waders.\u201d\n\nThe Lamarckian hypothesis has long since been justly condemned, and it\nis the established practice for every tyro to raise his heel against\nthe carcass of the dead lion. But it is rarely either wise or\ninstructive to treat even the errors of a really great man with mere\nridicule, and in the present case the logical form of the doctrine\nstands on a very different footing from its substance.\n\nIf species have really arisen by the operation of natural conditions,\nwe ought to be able to find those conditions now at work; we ought to\nbe able to discover in nature some power adequate to modify any given\nkind of animal or plant in such a manner as to give rise to another\nkind, which would be admitted by naturalists as a distinct species.\nLamarck imagined that he had discovered this _vera causa_ in the\nadmitted facts that some organs may be modified by exercise; and that\nmodifications, once produced, are capable of hereditary transmission.\nIt does not seem to have occurred to him to inquire whether there is\nany reason to believe that there are any limits to the amount of\nmodification producible, or to ask how long an animal is likely to\nendeavour to gratify an impossible desire. The bird, in our example,\nwould surely have renounced fish dinners long before it had produced\nthe least effect on leg or neck.\n\nSince Lamarck\u2019s time, almost all competent naturalists have left\nspeculations on the origin of species to such dreamers as the author of\nthe \u201cVestiges,\u201d by whose well-intentioned efforts the Lamarckian theory\nreceived its final condemnation in the minds of all sound thinkers.\nNotwithstanding this silence, however, the transmutation theory, as it\nhas been called, has been a \u201cskeleton in the closet\u201d to many an honest\nzoologist and botanist who had a soul above the mere naming of dried\nplants and skins. Surely, has such an one thought, nature is a mighty\nand consistent whole, and the providential order established in the\nworld of life must, if we could only see it rightly, be consistent with\nthat dominant over the multiform shapes of brute matter. But what is\nthe history of astronomy, of all the branches of physics, of chemistry,\nof medicine, but a narration of the steps by which the human mind has\nbeen compelled, often sorely against its will, to recognize the\noperation of secondary causes in events where ignorance beheld an\nimmediate intervention of a higher power? And when we know that living\nthings are formed of the same elements as the inorganic world, that\nthey act and react upon it, bound by a thousand ties of natural piety,\nis it probable, nay is it possible, that they, and they alone, should\nhave no order in their seeming disorder, no unity in their seeming\nmultiplicity, should suffer no explanation by the discovery of some\ncentral and sublime law of mutual connexion?\n\nQuestions of this kind have assuredly often arisen, but it might have\nbeen long before they received such expression as would have commanded\nthe respect and attention of the scientific world, had it not been for\nthe publication of the work which prompted this article. Its author,\nMr. Darwin, inheritor of a once celebrated name, won his spurs in\nscience when most of those now distinguished were young men, and has\nfor the last 20 years held a place in the front ranks of British\nphilosophers. After a circumnavigatory voyage, undertaken solely for\nthe love of his science, Mr. Darwin published a series of researches\nwhich at once arrested the attention of naturalists and geologists; his\ngeneralizations have since received ample confirmation, and now command\nuniversal assent, nor is it questionable that they have had the most\nimportant influence on the progress of science. More recently Mr.\nDarwin, with a versatility which is among the rarest of gifts, turned\nhis attention to a most difficult question of zoology and minute\nanatomy; and no living naturalist and anatomist has published a better\nmonograph than that which resulted from his labours. Such a man, at all\nevents, has not entered the sanctuary with unwashed hands, and when he\nlays before us the results of 20 years\u2019 investigation and reflection we\nmust listen even though we be disposed to strike. But, in reading his\nwork it must be confessed that the attention which might at first be\ndutifully, soon becomes willingly, given, so clear is the author\u2019s\nthought, so outspoken his conviction, so honest and fair the candid\nexpression of his doubts. Those who would judge the book must read it;\nwe shall endeavour only to make its line of argument and its\nphilosophical position intelligible to the general reader in our own\nway.\n\nThe Baker-street Bazaar has just been exhibiting its familiar annual\nspectacle. Straight-backed, small-headed, big-barrelled oxen, as\ndissimilar from any wild species as can well be imagined, contended for\nattention and praise with sheep of half-a-dozen different breeds and\nstyes of bloated preposterous pigs, no more like a wild boar or sow\nthan a city alderman is like an ourang-outang. The cattle show has\nbeen, and perhaps may again be, succeeded by a poultry show, of whose\ncrowing and clucking prodigies it can only be certainly predicated that\nthey will be very unlike the aboriginal _Phasianus gallus_. If the\nseeker after animal anomalies is not satisfied, a turn or two in Seven\nDials will convince him that the breeds of pigeons are quite as\nextraordinary and unlike one another and their parent stock, while the\nHorticultural Society will provide him with any number of corresponding\nvegetable aberrations from nature\u2019s types. He will learn with no little\nsurprise, too, in the course of his travels, that the proprietors and\nproducers of these animal and vegetable anomalies regard them as\ndistinct species, with a firm belief, the strength of which is exactly\nproportioned to their ignorance of scientific biology, and which is the\nmore remarkable as they are all proud of their skill in _originating_\nsuch \u201cspecies.\u201d\n\nOn careful inquiry it is found that all these, and the many other\nartificial breeds or races of animals and plants, have been produced by\none method. The breeder\u2014and a skilful one must be a person of much\nsagacity and natural or acquired perceptive faculty\u2014notes some slight\ndifference, arising he knows not how, in some individuals of his stock.\nIf he wish to perpetuate the difference, to form a breed with the\npeculiarity in question strongly marked, he selects such male and\nfemale individuals as exhibit the desired character, and breeds from\nthem. Their offspring are then carefully examined, and those which\nexhibit the peculiarity the most distinctly are selected for breeding,\nand this operation is repeated until the desired amount of divergence\nfrom the primitive stock is reached. It is then found that by\ncontinuing the process of selection\u2014always breeding, that is, from\nwell-marked forms, and allowing no impure crosses to interfere,\u2014a race\nmay be formed, the tendency of which to reproduce itself is exceedingly\nstrong; nor is the limit to the amount of divergence which may be thus\nproduced known, but one thing is certain, that, if certain breeds of\ndogs, or of pigeons, or of horses, were known only in a fossil state,\nno naturalist would hesitate in regarding them as distinct species.\n\nBut, in all these cases we have _human interference_. Without the\nbreeder there would be no selection, and without the selection no race.\nBefore admitting the possibility of natural species having originated\nin any similar way, it must be proved that there is in nature some\npower which takes the place of man, and performs a selection _sua\nsponte_. It is the claim of Mr. Darwin that he professes to have\ndiscovered the existence and the _modus operandi_ of this natural\nselection, as he terms it; and, if he be right, the process is\nperfectly simple and comprehensible, and irresistibly deducible from\nvery familiar but well nigh forgotten facts.\n\nWho, for instance, has duly reflected upon all the consequences of the\nmarvellous struggle for existence which is daily and hourly going on\namong living beings? Not only does every animal live at the expense of\nsome other animal or plant, but the very plants are at war. The ground\nis full of seeds that cannot rise into seedlings; the seedlings rob one\nanother of air, light and water, the strongest robber winning the day,\nand extinguishing his competitors. Year after year, the wild animals\nwith which man never interferes are, on the average, neither more nor\nless numerous than they were; and yet we know that the annual produce\nof every pair is from one to perhaps a million young,\u2014so that it is\nmathematically certain that, on the average, as many are killed by\nnatural causes as are born every year, and those only escape which\nhappen to be a little better fitted to resist destruction than those\nwhich die. The individuals of a species are like the crew of a\nfoundered ship, and none but good swimmers have a chance of reaching\nthe land.\n\nSuch being unquestionably the necessary conditions under which living\ncreatures exist, Mr. Darwin discovers in them the instrument of natural\nselection. Suppose that in the midst of this incessant competition some\nindividuals of a species (A) present accidental variations which happen\nto fit them a little better than their fellows for the struggle in\nwhich they are engaged, then the chances are in favour, not only of\nthese individuals being better nourished than the others, but of their\npredominating over their fellows in other ways, and of having a better\nchance of leaving offspring, which will of course tend to reproduce the\npeculiarities of their parents. Their offspring will, by a parity of\nreasoning, tend to predominate over their contemporaries, and there\nbeing (suppose) no room for more than one species such as A, the weaker\nvariety will eventually be destroyed by the new destructive influence\nwhich is thrown into the scale, and the stronger will take its place.\nSurrounding conditions remaining unchanged, the new variety (which we\nmay call B)\u2014supposed, for argument\u2019s sake, to be the best adapted for\nthese conditions which can be got out of the original stock\u2014will remain\nunchanged, all accidental deviations from the type becoming at once\nextinguished, as less fit for their post than B itself. The tendency of\nB to persist will grow with its persistence through successive\ngenerations, and it will acquire all the characters of a new species.\n\nBut, on the other hand, if the conditions of life change in any degree,\nhowever slight, B may no longer be that form which is best adapted to\nwithstand their destructive, and profit by their sustaining, influence;\nin which case if it should give rise to a more competent variety (C),\nthis will take its place and become a new species; and thus, by\n_natural selection_, the species B and C will be successively derived\nfrom A.\n\nThat this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a reason for\nmany apparent anomalies in the distribution of living beings in time\nand space, and that it is not contradicted by the main phenomena of\nlife and organization appear to us to be unquestionable; and so far it\nmust be admitted to have an immense advantage over any of its\npredecessors. But it is quite another matter to affirm absolutely\neither the truth or falsehood of Mr. Darwin\u2019s views at the present\nstage of the inquiry. Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that\nstate of mind which he calls _Th\u00e4tige Skepsis_\u2014active doubt. It is\ndoubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor\nextinguish itself by unjustified belief; and we commend this state of\nmind to students of species, with respect to Mr. Darwin\u2019s or any other\nhypothesis, as to their origin. The combined investigations of another\n20 years may, perhaps, enable naturalists to say whether the modifying\ncauses and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has satisfactorily\nshown to exist in nature, are competent to produce all the effects he\nascribes to them, or whether, on the other hand, he has been led to\nover-estimate the value of his principle of natural selection, as\ngreatly as Lamarck overestimated his _vera causa_ of modification by\nexercise.\n\nBut there is, at all events, one advantage possessed by the more recent\nwriter over his predecessor. Mr. Darwin abhors mere speculation as\nnature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of cases and precedents as any\nconstitutional lawyer, and all the principles he lays down are capable\nof being brought to the test of observation and experiment. The path he\nbids us follow professes to be, not a mere airy track, fabricated of\nideal cobwebs, but a solid and broad bridge of facts. If it be so, it\nwill carry us safely over many a chasm in our knowledge, and lead us to\na region free from the snares of those fascinating but barren Virgins,\nthe Final Causes, against whom a high authority has so justly warned\nus. \u201cMy sons, dig in the vineyard,\u201d were the last words of the old man\nin the fable; and, though the sons found no treasure, they made their\nfortunes by the grapes.\n\n * _Times_, December 26th, 1850.","title":"The Darwinian Hypothesis","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":5262}