{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53639/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53639","id":"gutenberg_53639","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53639","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution -- History","Religion and science"],"text":"Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustrations.\n      See 53639-h.htm or 53639-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/53639/pg53639-images.html)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53639/53639-h.zip)\n\n\n      Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive. See\n      https://archive.org/details/lastwordsonevolu00haeciala\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n      More details of transcription can be found at the end of the\n      book.\n\n\n\n\n\nLAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION\n\n\n[Illustration: Br\u00e4unlich & Tesch (Emil Tesch), Hofphot. Jena.\nPublished by A. Owen & Co., London.\n\nErnst Haeckel.]\n\n\nLAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION\n\nA Popular Retrospect and Summary\n\nby\n\nERNST HAECKEL\n\nProfessor at Jena University\n\nTranslated from the Second Edition by Joseph McCabe\n\nWith Portrait and Three Plates\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLondon\nA. Owen & Co.\n28 Regent Street, S.W.\n1906\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                        PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                             7\n\n  PREFACE                                                 11\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n  THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION\n\n  Evolution and Dogma                                     15\n\n  PLATE I.--Genealogical Tree of the Vertebrates          17\n\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE\n\n  Our Ape-Relatives and the Vertebrate-Stem               49\n\n  PLATE II.--Skeletons of Five Anthropoid Apes            51\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL\n\n  The Ideas of Immortality and God                        83\n\n  PLATE III.--Embryos of Three Mammals                    85\n\n\n  APPENDIX\n\n  EVOLUTIONARY TABLES\n\n  Geological Ages and Periods                            115\n\n  Man's Genealogical Tree--_First Half_                  116\n\n  Man's Genealogical Tree--_Second Half_                 117\n\n  Classification of the Primates                         118\n\n  Genealogical Tree of the Primates                      119\n\n  Explanation of Genealogical Table 1.                   120\n\n\n  POSTSCRIPT\n\n  Evolution and Jesuitism                                121\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nA few months ago the sensational announcement was made that\nProfessor Haeckel had abandoned Darwinism and given public support\nto the teaching of a Jesuit writer. There was something piquant\nin the suggestion that the \"Darwin of Germany\" had recanted the\nconclusions of fifty years of laborious study. Nor could people\nforget that only two years before Haeckel had written with some\nfeeling about the partial recantation of some of his colleagues.\nMany of our journals boldly declined to insert the romantic news,\nwhich came through one of the chief international press agencies.\nOthers drew the attention of their readers, in jubilant editorial\nnotes, to the lively prospect it opened out. To the many inquiries\naddressed to me as the \"apostle of Professor Haeckel,\" as Sir\nOliver Lodge dubs me in a genial letter, I timidly represented that\neven a German reporter sometimes drank. But the correction quickly\ncame that the telegram had exactly reversed the position taken up\nby the great biologist. It is only just to the honourable calling\nof the reporter to add that, according to the theory current in\nGermany, the message was tampered with by subtle and ubiquitous\nJesuistry. Did they not penetrate even into the culinary service at\nHatfield?\n\nI have pleasure in now introducing the three famous lectures\ndelivered by Professor Haeckel at Berlin, and the reader will\nsee the grotesqueness of the original announcement. They are the\nlast public deliverance that the aged professor will ever make.\nHis enfeebled health forbids us to hope that his decision may yet\nbe undone. He is now condemned, he tells me, to remain a passive\nspectator of the tense drama in which he has played so prominent\na part for half a century. For him the red rays fall level on the\nscene and the people about him. It may be that they light up too\nluridly, too falsely, the situation in Germany; but the reader will\nunderstand how a Liberal of Haeckel's temper must feel his country\nto be between Scylla and Charybdis--between an increasingly clear\nalternative of Catholicism or Socialism--with a helmsman at the\nwheel whose vagaries inspire no confidence.\n\nThe English reader will care to be instructed on the antithesis of\nVirchow and Haeckel which gives point to these lectures, and which\nis often misrepresented in this country. Virchow, the greatest\npathologist and one of the leading anthropologists of Germany, had\nmuch to do with the inspiring of Haeckel's Monistic views in the\nfifties. Like several other prominent German thinkers, Virchow\nsubsequently abandoned the positive Monistic position for one of\nagnosticism and scepticism, and a long and bitter conflict ensued.\nIt is hardly too much to say that Virchow's ultra-timid reserve in\nregard to the evolution of man and other questions has died with\nhim. Apart from one or two less prominent anthropologists, and\nthe curious distinction drawn by Dr. A. R. Wallace, science has\naccepted the fact of evolution, and has, indeed, accepted the main\nlines of Haeckel's ancestral tree of the human race.\n\nIn any case, Haeckel had the splendid revenge of surviving his old\nteacher and almost lifelong opponent. Berlin had for years been\ndominated by the sceptical temper of Virchow and Du Bois-Reymond.\nThe ardent evolutionist and opponent of Catholicism was impatient\nof a reserve that he felt to be an anachronism in science and an\neffective support of reactionary ideas. It was, therefore, with\na peculiar satisfaction that he received the invitation, after\nVirchow's death, to address the Berlin public. Among the many and\ndistinguished honours that have been heaped upon him in the last\nten years this was felt by him to hold a high place. He could at\nlast submit freely, in the capital of his country, the massive\nfoundations and the imposing structure of a doctrine which he holds\nto be no less established in science than valuable in the general\ncause of progress.\n\nThe lectures are reproduced here not solely because of the\ninterest aroused in them by the \"Jesuit\" telegram. They contain a\nvery valuable summary of his conclusions, and include the latest\nscientific confirmation. Rarely has the great biologist written\nin such clear and untechnical phrases, so that the general reader\nwill easily learn the outlines of his much-discussed Monism. To\ncloser students, who are at times impatient of the Lamarckian\nphraseology of Haeckel--to all, in fact, who would like to see how\nthe same evolutionary truths are expressed without reliance on the\ninheritance of acquired characters--I may take the opportunity\nto say that I have translated, for the same publishers, Professor\nGuenther's \"Darwinism and the Problems of Life,\" which will shortly\nbe in their hands.\n\n  JOSEPH MCCABE.\n\n  _November, 1905._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIn the beginning of April, 1905, I received from Berlin a very\nunexpected invitation to deliver a popular scientific lecture\nat the Academy of Music in that city. I at first declined this\nflattering invitation, with thanks, sending them a copy of a\nprinted declaration, dated 17th July, 1901, which I had made\nfrequent use of, to the effect that \"I could not deliver any more\npublic lectures, on account of the state of my health, my advanced\nage, and the many labours that were still incumbent on me.\"\n\nI was persuaded to make one departure from this fixed resolution,\nfirstly, by the pressing entreaties of many intimate friends\nat Berlin. They represented to me how important it was to give\nan account myself to the educated Berlin public of the chief\nevolutionary conclusions I had advocated for forty years. They\npointed out emphatically that the increasing reaction in higher\ncircles, the growing audacity of intolerant orthodoxy, the\npreponderance of Ultramontanism, and the dangers that this involved\nfor freedom of thought in Germany, for the university and the\nschool, made it imperative to take vigorous action. It happened\nthat I had just been following the interesting efforts that the\nChurch has lately made to enter into a peaceful compromise with\nits deadly enemy, Monistic science. It has decided to accept\nto a certain extent, and to accommodate to its creed (in a\ndistorted and mutilated form) the doctrine of evolution, which it\nhas vehemently opposed for thirty years. This remarkable change\nof front on the part of the Church militant seemed to me so\ninteresting and important, and at the same time so misleading and\nmischievous, that I chose it as the subject of a popular lecture,\nand accepted the invitation to Berlin.\n\nAfter a few days, when I had written my discourse, I was advised\nfrom Berlin that the applications for admission were so numerous\nthat the lecture must either be repeated or divided into two. I\nchose the latter course, as the material was very abundant. In\ncompliance with an urgent request, I repeated the two lectures\n(17th and 18th April); and as demands for fresh lectures continued\nto reach me, I was persuaded to add a \"farewell lecture\" (on 19th\nApril), in which I dealt with a number of important questions that\nhad not been adequately treated.\n\nThe noble gift of effective oratory has been denied me by Nature.\nThough I have taught for eighty-eight terms at the little\nUniversity of Jena, I have never been able to overcome a certain\nnervousness about appearing in public, and have never acquired\nthe art of expressing my thoughts in burning language and with\nappropriate gesture. For these and other reasons, I have rarely\nconsented to take part in scientific and other congresses; the few\nspeeches that I have delivered on such occasions, and are issued\nin collected form, were drawn from me by my deep interest in the\ngreat struggle for the triumph of truth. However, in the three\nBerlin lectures--my _last_ public addresses--I had no design of\nwinning my hearers to my opinions by means of oratory. It was\nrather my intention to put before them, in connected form, the\ngreat groups of biological facts, by which they could, on impartial\nconsideration, convince themselves of the truth and importance of\nthe theory of evolution.\n\nReaders who are interested in the evolution-controversy, as I\nhere describe it, will find in my earlier works (_The History of\nCreation_, _The Evolution of Man_, _The Riddle of the Universe_,\nand _The Wonders of Life_) a thorough treatment of the views I\nhave summarily presented. I do not belong to the amiable group\nof \"men of compromise,\" but am in the habit of giving candid and\nstraightforward expression to the convictions which a half-century\nof serious and laborious study has led me to form. If I seem to be\na tactless and inconsiderate \"fighter,\" I pray you to remember that\n\"conflict is the father of all things,\" and that the victory of\npure reason over current superstition will not be achieved without\na tremendous struggle. But I regard _ideas_ only in my struggles:\nto the _persons_ of my opponents I am indifferent, bitterly as they\nhave attacked and slandered my own person.\n\nAlthough I have lived in Berlin for many years as student and\nteacher, and have always been in communication with scientific\ncircles there, I have only once before delivered a public lecture\nin that city. That was on \"The Division of Labour in Nature and\nHuman Life\" (17th December, 1868). I was, therefore, somewhat\ngratified to be able to speak there again (and for the last time),\nafter thirty-six years, especially as it was in the very spot, the\nhall of the Academy of Music, in which I had heard the leaders of\nthe Berlin University speak fifty years ago.\n\nIt is with great pleasure that I express my cordial thanks to those\nwho invited me to deliver these lectures, and who did so much to\nmake my stay in the capital pleasant; and also to my many hearers\nfor their amiable and sympathetic attention.\n\n  ERNST HAECKEL.\n\n  JENA, _9th May, 1905_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION\n\nEVOLUTION AND DOGMA\n\n\nEXPLANATION OF PLATE I\n\nGENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE VERTEBRATES\n\n\n    The genetic relationship of all vertebrates, from the earliest\n    acrania and fishes up to the apes and man, is proved in its\n    main lines by the concordant testimony of paleontology,\n    comparative anatomy, and embryology. All competent and\n    impartial zoologists now agree that the vertebrates are all\n    descended from a _single_ stem, and that the root of this is\n    to be sought in extinct pre-Silurian _Acrania_ (1), somewhat\n    similar to the living lancelet. The _Cyclostoma_ (2) represent\n    the transition from the latter to the _Fishes_ (3); and the\n    _Dipneusts_ (4) the transition from these to the _Amphibia_\n    (5). From the latter have been developed the _Reptiles_ (6)\n    on the one hand, and the _Mammals_ (7) on the other. The\n    most important branch of this most advanced class is the\n    _Primates_ (8); from the half-apes, or lemurs, a direct line\n    leads, through the baboons, to the anthropoid apes, and\n    through these on to man. (_Cf._ the tables on pp. 115-120).\n    Further information will be found in chapters xxiv.-xxvii. of\n    the _History of Creation_, and chapters xxi.-xxiii. of the\n    _Evolution of Man_.\n\n\nPLATE I.\n\n[Illustration: GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE VERTEBRATES]\n\n\nLAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE CONTROVERSY ABOUT CREATION\n\nEVOLUTION AND DOGMA\n\n\nThe controversy over the idea of evolution is a prominent feature\nin the mental life of the nineteenth century. It is true that a\nfew great thinkers had spoken of a natural evolution of all things\nseveral thousand years ago. They had, indeed, partly investigated\nthe laws that control the birth and death of the world, and the\nrise of the earth and its inhabitants; even the creation-stories\nand the myths of the older religions betray a partial influence\nof these evolutionary ideas. But it was not until the nineteenth\ncentury that the idea of evolution took definite shape and was\nscientifically grounded on various classes of evidence; and it\nwas not until the last third of the century that it won general\nrecognition. The intimate connection that was proved to exist\nbetween all branches of knowledge, once the continuity of\nhistorical development was realised, and the union of them all\nthrough the Monistic philosophy, are achievements of the last few\ndecades.\n\nThe great majority of the older ideas that thoughtful men had\nformed on the origin and nature of the world and their own frame\nwere far removed from the notion of \"self-development.\" They\nculminated in more or less obscure creation-myths, which generally\nput in the foreground the idea of a personal Creator. Just as man\nhas used intelligence and design in the making of his weapons and\ntools, his houses and his boats, so it was thought that the Creator\nhad fashioned the world with art and intelligence, according to\na definite plan. Among the many legends of this kind the ancient\nSemitic story of creation, familiar to us as the Mosaic narrative,\nbut drawn for the most part from Babylonian sources, has obtained\na very great influence on European culture owing to the general\nacceptance of the Bible. The belief in miracles, that is involved\nin these religious legends, was bound to come in conflict,\nat an early date, with the evolutionary ideas of independent\nphilosophical research. On the one hand, in the prevalent religious\nteaching, we had the supernatural world, the miraculous, teleology:\non the other hand, in the nascent science of evolution, only\nnatural law, pure reason, mechanical causality. Every step that was\nmade by this science brought into greater relief its inconsistency\nwith the predominant religion.[1]\n\nIf we glance for a moment at the various fields in which the idea\nof evolution is scientifically applied we find that, firstly,\nthe whole universe is conceived as a unity; secondly, our earth;\nthirdly, organic life on the earth; fourthly, man, as its highest\nproduct; and fifthly, the soul, as a special immaterial entity.\nThus we have, in historical succession, the evolutionary research\nof cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology, and psychology.\n\nThe first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution was put\nforth by the famous critical philosopher Immanuel Kant, in 1755,\nin the great work of his earlier years, _General Natural History\nof the Heavens, or an Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the\nOrigin of the Universe mechanically, according to the Newtonian\nLaws_. This remarkable work appeared anonymously, and was\ndedicated to Frederick the Great, who, however, never saw it. It\nwas little noticed, and was soon entirely forgotten, until it\nwas exhumed ninety years afterwards by Alexander von Humboldt.\nNote particularly that on the title-page stress is laid on the\n_mechanical_ origin of the world and its explanation on Newtonian\nprinciples; in this way the strictly Monistic character of the\nwhole cosmogony and the absolutely universal rule of natural law\nare clearly expressed. It is true that Kant speaks much in it of\nGod and his wisdom and omnipotence; but this is limited to the\naffirmation that God created once for all the unchangeable laws of\nnature, and was henceforward bound by them and only able to work\nthrough them. The Dualism which became so pronounced subsequently\nin the philosopher of Koenigsberg counts for very little here.\n\nThe idea of a natural development of the world occurs in a clearer\nand more consistent form, and is provided with a firm mathematical\nbasis, forty years afterwards, in the remarkable _M\u00e9canique\nC\u00e9leste_ of Pierre Laplace. His popular _Exposition du Syst\u00e8me du\nMonde_ (1796) destroyed at its roots the legend of creation that\nhad hitherto prevailed, or the Mosaic narrative in the Bible.\nLaplace, who had become Minister of the Interior, Count, and\nChancellor of the Senate, under Napoleon, was merely honourable\nand consistent when he replied to the emperor's question, \"What\nroom there was for God in his system?\": \"Sire, I had no need\nfor that unfounded hypothesis.\" What strange ministers there\nare sometimes![2] The shrewdness of the Church soon recognised\nthat the personal Creator was dethroned, and the creation-myth\ndestroyed, by this Monistic and now generally received theory\nof cosmic development. Nevertheless it maintained towards it\nthe attitude which it had taken up 250 years earlier in regard\nto the closely related and irrefutable system of Copernicus. It\nendeavoured to conceal the truth as long as possible, or to oppose\nit with Jesuitical methods, and finally it yielded. If the Churches\nnow silently admit the Copernican system and the cosmogony of\nLaplace and have ceased to oppose them, we must attribute the fact,\npartly to a feeling of their spiritual impotence, partly to an\nastute calculation that the ignorant masses do not reflect on these\ngreat problems.\n\nIn order to obtain a clear idea and a firm conviction of this\ncosmic evolution by natural law, the eternal birth and death of\nmillions of suns and stars, one needs some mathematical training\nand a lively imagination, as well as a certain competence in\nastronomy and physics. The evolutionary process is much simpler,\nand more readily grasped in geology. Every shower of rain or wave\nof the sea, every volcanic eruption and every pebble, gives us a\ndirect proof of the changes that are constantly taking place on\nthe surface of our planet. However, the historical significance\nof these changes was not properly appreciated until 1822, by Karl\nvon Hoff of Gotha, and modern geology was only founded in 1830\nby Charles Lyell, who explained the whole origin and composition\nof the solid crust of the earth, the formation of the mountains,\nand the periods of the earth's development, in a connected system\nby natural laws. From the immense thickness of the stratified\nrocks, which contain the fossilised remains of extinct organisms,\nwe discovered the enormous length--running into millions of\nyears--of the periods during which these sedimentary rocks were\ndeposited in water. Even the duration of the _organic_ history of\nthe earth--that is to say, the period during which the plant and\nanimal population of our planet was developing--must itself be put\nat more than a hundred million years. These results of geology and\npaleontology destroyed the current legend of the six days' work of\na personal Creator. Many attempts were made, it is true, and are\nstill being made, to reconcile the Mosaic supernatural story of\ncreation with modern geology.[3] All these efforts of believers\nare in vain. We may say, in fact, that it is precisely the study\nof geology, the reflection it entails on the enormous periods of\nevolution, and the habit of seeking the simple mechanical causes\nof their constant changes, that contribute very considerably to\nthe advance of enlightenment. Yet in spite of this (or, possibly,\nbecause of this), geological instruction is either greatly\nneglected or entirely suppressed in most schools. It is certainly\neminently calculated (in connection with geography) to enlarge\nthe mind, and acquaint the child with the idea of evolution. An\neducated person who knows the elements of geology will never\nexperience _ennui_. He will find everywhere in surrounding nature,\nin the rocks and in the water, in the desert and on the mountains,\nthe most instructive stimuli to reflection.\n\nThe evolutionary process in organic nature is much more difficult\nto grasp. Here we must distinguish two different series of\nbiological development, which have only been brought into proper\ncausal connection by means of our biogenetic law (1866); one series\nis found in embryology (or ontogeny), the other in phylogeny (or\nrace-development). In Germany \"evolution\" always meant embryology,\nor a part of the whole, until forty years ago. It stood for a\nmicroscopic examination of the wonderful processes by means of\nwhich the elaborate structure of the plant or animal body is\nformed from the simple seed of the plant or the egg of the bird.\nUntil the beginning of the nineteenth century the erroneous\nview was generally received that this marvellously complicated\nstructure existed, completely formed, in the simple ovum, and that\nthe various organs had merely to grow and to shape themselves\nindependently by a process of \"evolution\" (or unfolding), before\nthey entered into activity. An able German scientist, Caspar\nFriedrich Wolff (son of a Berlin tailor), had already shown the\nerror of this \"pre-formation theory\" in 1759. He had proved, in his\ndissertation for the doctorate, that no trace of the later body,\nof its bones, muscles, nerves, and feathers, can be found in the\nhen's egg (the commonest and most convenient object for study),\nbut merely a small round disk, consisting of two thin superimposed\nlayers. He had further showed that the various organs are only\nbuilt up gradually out of these simple elements, and that we can\ntrace, step by step, a series of real new growths. However, these\nmomentous discoveries, and the sound \"theory of epigenesis\" that\nhe based on them, were wholly ignored for fifty years, and even\nrejected by the leading authorities. It was not until Oken had\nre-discovered these important facts at Jena (1806), Pander had more\ncarefully distinguished the germinal layers (1817), and finally\nCarl Ernst von Baer had happily combined observation and reflection\nin his classical _Animal Embryology_ (1828), that embryology\nattained the rank of an independent science with a sound empirical\nbase.\n\nA little later it secured a well-merited recognition in botany\nalso, especially owing to the efforts of Matthias Schleiden of\nJena, the distinguished student who provided biology with a new\nfoundation in the \"cell theory\" (1838). But it was not until the\nmiddle of the nineteenth century that people generally recognised\nthat the ovum of the plant or animal is itself only a simple cell,\nand that the later tissues and organs gradually develop from this\n\"elementary organism\" by a repeated cleavage of, and division of\nlabour in, the cells. The most important step was then made of\nrecognising that our human organism also develops from an ovum\n(first discovered by Baer in 1827), in virtue of the same laws, and\nthat its embryonic development resembles that of the other mammals,\nespecially that of the ape. Each of us was, at the beginning of\nhis existence, a simple globule of protoplasm, surrounded by a\nmembrane, about 1/120 of an inch in diameter, with a firmer nucleus\ninside it. These important embryological discoveries confirmed the\nrational conception of the human organism that had been attained\nmuch earlier by comparative anatomy: the conviction that the\nhuman frame is built in the same way, and develops similarly from\na simple ovum, as the body of all other mammals. Even Linn\u00e9 had\nalready (1735) given man a place in the mammal class in his famous\n_System of Nature_.\n\nDifferently from these embryological facts, which can be directly\nobserved, the phenomena of phylogeny (the development of species),\nwhich are needed to set the former in their true light, are usually\noutside the range of immediate observation. What was the origin of\nthe countless species of animals and plants? How can we explain the\nremarkable relationships which unite similar species into genera\nand these into classes? Linn\u00e9 answers the question very simply\nwith the belief in creation, relying on the generally accepted\nMosaic narrative: \"There are as many different species of animals\nand plants as there were different forms created by God in the\nbeginning.\" The first scientific answer was given in 1809 by the\ngreat French scientist, Lamarck. He taught, in his suggestive\n_Philosophie Zoologique_, that the resemblances in form and\nstructure of groups of species are due to real affinity, and that\nall organisms descend from a few very simple primitive forms (or,\npossibly, from a single one). These primitive forms were developed\nout of lifeless matter by spontaneous generation. The resemblances\nof related groups of species are explained by _inheritance_ from\ncommon stem-forms; their dissimilarities are due to _adaptation_\nto different environments, and to variety in the action of the\nmodifiable organs. The human race has arisen in the same way, by\ntransformation of a series of mammal ancestors, the nearest of\nwhich are ape-like primates.\n\nThese great ideas of Lamarck, which threw light on the whole\nfield of organic life, and were closely approached by Goethe in\nhis own speculations, gave rise to the theory that we now know\nas transformism, or the theory of evolution or descent. But the\nfar-seeing Lamarck was--as Caspar Friedrich Wolff had been fifty\nyears before--half a century before his time. His theory obtained\nno recognition, and was soon wholly forgotten.\n\nIt was brought into the light once more in 1859 by the genius\nof Charles Darwin, who had been born in the very year that the\n_Philosophie Zoologique_ was published. The substance and the\nsuccess of his system, which has gone by the name of Darwinism\n(in the wider sense) for forty-six years, are so generally known\nthat I need not dwell on them. I will only point out that the\ngreat success of Darwin's epoch-making works is due to two causes:\nfirstly, to the fact that the English scientist most ingeniously\nworked up the empirical material that had accumulated during\nfifty years into a systematic proof of the theory of descent; and\nsecondly, to the fact that he gave it the support of a second\ntheory of his own, the theory of natural selection. This theory,\nwhich gives a causal explanation of the transformation of species,\nis what we ought to call \"Darwinism\" in the strict sense. We cannot\ngo here into the question how far this theory is justified, or how\nfar it is corrected by more recent theories, such as Weismann's\ntheory of germ-plasm (1844), or De Vries's theory of mutations\n(1900). Our concern is rather with the unparalleled influence that\nDarwinism, and its application to man, have had during the last\nforty years on the whole province of science; and at the same time,\nwith its irreconcilable opposition to the dogmas of the Churches.\n\nThe extension of the theory of evolution to man was, naturally,\none of the most interesting and momentous applications of it. If\nall other organisms arose, not by a miraculous creation, but by a\nnatural modification of earlier forms of life, the presumption is\nthat the human race also was developed by the transformation of the\nmost man-like mammals, the primates of Linn\u00e9--the apes and lemurs.\nThis natural inference, which Lamarck had drawn in his simple way,\nbut Darwin had at first explicitly avoided, was first thoroughly\nestablished by the gifted zoologist, Thomas Huxley, in his three\nlectures on _Man's Place in Nature_ (1863). He showed that this\n\"question of questions\" is unequivocally answered by three chief\nwitnesses--the natural history of the anthropoid apes, the anatomic\nand embryological relations of man to the animals immediately\nbelow him, and the recently discovered fossil human remains.\nDarwin entirely accepted these conclusions of his friend eight\nyears afterwards, and, in his two-volume work, _The Descent of Man\nand Sexual Selection_ (1871), furnished a number of new proofs in\nsupport of the dreaded \"descent of man from the ape.\" I myself\nthen (1874) completed the task I had begun in 1866, of determining\napproximately the whole series of the extinct animal ancestors of\nthe human race, on the ground of comparative anatomy, embryology,\nand paleontology. This attempt was improved, as our knowledge\nadvanced, in the five editions of my _Evolution of Man_. In the\nlast twenty years a vast literature on the subject has accumulated.\nI must assume that you are acquainted with the contents of one\nor other of these works, and will turn to the question, that\nespecially engages our attention at present, how the inevitable\nstruggle between these momentous achievements of modern science and\nthe dogmas of the Churches has run in recent years.\n\nIt was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and\nits extension to man in particular must meet from the first\nwith the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches.\nBoth were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of\ncreation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it,\nand are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable\nto the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the\nmetaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a\nparticularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief\nconsequence, the descent of man from the ape. This resistance\nseemed the more justified and hopeful as, for seven or eight years\nafter Darwin's appearance, few biologists accepted his theory, and\nthe general attitude amongst them was one of cold scepticism. I can\nwell testify to this from my own experience. When I first openly\nadvocated Darwin's theory at a scientific congress at Stettin in\n1863, I was almost alone, and was blamed by the great majority\nfor taking up seriously so fantastic a theory, \"the dream of an\nafter-dinner nap,\" as the G\u00f6ttinger zoologist, Keferstein, called\nit.\n\nThe general attitude towards Nature fifty years ago was so\ndifferent from that we find everywhere to-day, that it is difficult\nto convey a clear idea of it to a young scientist or philosopher.\nThe great question of creation, the problem how the various species\nof plants and animals came into the world, and how man came into\nbeing, did not exist yet in exact science. There was, in fact, no\nquestion of it.\n\nSeventy-seven years ago Alexander von Humboldt delivered, in this\nvery spot, the lectures which afterwards made up his famous\nwork, _Cosmos, the Elements of a Physical Description of the\nWorld_. As he touched, in passing, the obscure problem of the\norigin of the organic population of our planet, he could only say\nresignedly: \"The mysterious and unsolved problem of how things\ncame to be does not belong to the empirical province of objective\nresearch, the description of what _is_.\" It is instructive to\nfind Johannes M\u00fcller, the greatest of German biologists in the\nnineteenth century, speaking thus in 1852, in his famous essay,\n\"On the Generation of Snails in Holothurians\": \"The entrance of\nvarious species of animals into creation is certain--it is a\nfact of paleontology; but it is _supernatural_ as long as this\nentrance cannot be perceived in the act and become an element of\nobservation.\" I myself had a number of remarkable conversations\nwith M\u00fcller, whom I put at the head of all my distinguished\nteachers, in the summer of 1854. His lectures on comparative\nanatomy and physiology--the most illuminating and stimulating I\never heard--had captivated me to such an extent that I asked and\nobtained his permission to make a closer study of the skeletons and\nother preparations in his splendid museum of comparative anatomy\n(then in the right wing of the buildings of the Berlin University),\nand to draw them. M\u00fcller (then in his fifty-fourth year) used to\nspend the Sunday afternoon alone in the museum. He would walk to\nand fro for hours in the spacious rooms, his hands behind his\nback, buried in thought about the mysterious affinities of the\nvertebrates, the \"holy enigma\" of which was so forcibly impressed\nby the row of skeletons. Now and again my great master would turn\nto a small table at the side, at which I (a student of twenty\nyears) was sitting in the angle of a window, making conscientious\ndrawings of the skulls of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes.\n\nI would then beg him to explain particularly difficult points in\nanatomy, and once I ventured to put the question: \"Must not all\nthese vertebrates, with their identity in internal skeleton, in\nspite of all their external differences, have come originally from\na common form?\" The great master nodded his head thoughtfully, and\nsaid: \"Ah, if we only knew that! If ever you solve that riddle,\nyou will have accomplished a supreme work.\" Two months afterwards,\nin September, 1854, I had to accompany M\u00fcller to Heligoland, and\nlearned under his direction the beautiful and wonderful inhabitants\nof the sea. As we fished together in the sea, and caught the lovely\nmedus\u00e6, I asked him how it was possible to explain their remarkable\nalternation of generations; if the medus\u00e6, from the ova of which\npolyps develop to-day, must not have come originally from the more\nsimply organised polyps? To this precocious question, I received\nthe same resigned answer: \"Ah, that is a very obscure problem! We\nknow nothing whatever about the origin of species.\"\n\nJohannes M\u00fcller was certainly one of the greatest scientists of the\nnineteenth century. He takes rank with Cuvier, Baer, Lamarck, and\nDarwin. His insight was profound and penetrating, his philosophic\njudgment comprehensive, and his mastery of the vast province\nof biology was enormous. Emil du Bois-Reymond happily compared\nhim, in his fine commemorative address, to Alexander the Great,\nwhose kingdom was divided into several independent realms at his\ndeath. In his lectures and works M\u00fcller treated no less than four\ndifferent subjects, for which four separate chairs were founded\nafter his death in 1858--human anatomy, physiology, pathological\nanatomy, and comparative anatomy. In fact, we ought really to add\ntwo more subjects--zoology and embryology. Of these, also, we\nlearned more from M\u00fcller's classic lectures than from the official\nlectures of the professors of those subjects. The great master died\nin 1858, a few months before Charles Darwin and Alfred R. Wallace\nmade their first communications on their new theory of selection\nin the Journal of the Linn\u00e6an Society. I do not doubt in the least\nthat this surprising answer of the riddle of creation would have\nprofoundly moved M\u00fcller, and have been fully admitted by him on\nmature reflection.\n\nTo these leading masters in biology, and to all other anatomists,\nphysiologists, zoologists, and botanists up to 1858, the question\nof organic creation was an unsolved problem; the great majority\nregarded it as insoluble. The theologians and their allies, the\nmetaphysicians, built triumphantly on this fact. It afforded a\nclear proof of the limitations of reason and science. A miracle\nonly could account for the origin of these ingenious and carefully\ndesigned organisms; nothing less than the Divine wisdom and\nomnipotence could have brought man into being. But this general\nresignation of reason, and the dominance of supernatural ideas\nwhich it encouraged, were somewhat paradoxical in the thirty years\nbetween Lyell and Darwin, between 1830 and 1859, since the natural\nevolution of the earth, as conceived by the great geologist, had\ncome to be universally recognised. Since the earlier of these dates\nthe iron necessity of natural law had ruled in inorganic nature,\nin the formation of the mountains and the movement of the heavenly\nbodies. In organic nature, on the contrary, in the creation and the\nlife of animals and plants, people saw only the wisdom and power of\nan intelligent Creator and Controller; in other words, everything\nwas ruled by mechanical causality in the inorganic world, but by\nteleological finality in the realm of biology.\n\nPhilosophy, strictly so called, paid little or no attention to\nthis dilemma. Absorbed almost exclusively in metaphysical and\ndialectical speculations, it looked with supreme contempt or\nindifference on the enormous progress that the empirical sciences\nwere making. It affected, in its character of \"purely mental\nscience,\" to build up the world out of its own head, and to have no\nneed of the splendid material that was being laboriously gathered\nby observation and experiment. This is especially true of Germany,\nwhere Hegel's system of \"absolute idealism\" had secured the highest\nregard, particularly since it had been made obligatory as \"the\nroyal State-philosophy of Prussia\"--mainly because, according to\nHegel, \"in the State the Divine will itself and the monarchical\nconstitution alone represent the development of reason; all\nother forms of constitution are lower stages of the development\nof reason.\" Hegel's abstruse metaphysics has also been greatly\nappreciated because it has made so thorough and consistent a use\nof the idea of evolution. But this pretended \"evolution of reason\"\nfloated far above real nature in the pure ether of the absolute\nspirit, and was devoid of all the material ballast that the\nempirical science of the evolution of the world, the earth, and its\nliving population, had meantime accumulated. Moreover, it is well\nknown how Hegel himself declared, with humorous resignation, that\nonly _one_ of his many pupils had understood him, and this one had\nmisunderstood him.\n\nFrom the higher standpoint of general culture the difficult\nquestion forces itself on us: What is the real value of the idea\nof evolution in the whole realm of science? We are bound to\nanswer that it varies considerably. The facts of the evolution of\nthe individual, or of ontogeny, were easy to observe and grasp:\nthe evolution of the crust of the earth and of the mountains in\ngeology seemed to have an equally sound empirical foundation; the\nphysical evolution of the universe seemed to be established by\nmathematical speculation. There was no longer any serious question\nof _creation_, in the literal sense, of the deliberate action\nof a personal Creator, in these great provinces. But this made\npeople cling to the idea more than ever in regard to the origin of\nthe countless species of animals and plants, and especially the\ncreation of man. This transcendental problem seemed to be entirely\nbeyond the range of natural development; and the same was thought\nof the question of the nature and origin of the soul, the mystic\nentity that was appropriated by metaphysical speculation as its\nsubject. Charles Darwin suddenly brought a clear light into this\ndark chaos of contradictory notions in 1859. His epoch-making work,\n_The Origin of Species_, proved convincingly that this historical\nprocess is not a supernatural mystery, but a physiological\nphenomenon; and that the preservation of improved races in the\nstruggle for life had produced, by a natural evolution, the whole\nwondrous world of organic life.\n\nTo-day, when evolution is almost universally recognised in biology,\nwhen thousands of anatomic and physiological works are based on\nit every year, the new generation can hardly form an idea of the\nviolent resistance that was offered to Darwin's theory and the\nimpassioned struggles it provoked. In the first place, the Churches\nat once raised a vigorous protest; they rightly regarded their\nnew antagonist as the deadly enemy of the legend of creation,\nand saw the very foundations of their creed threatened. The\nChurches found a powerful ally in the dualistic metaphysics that\nstill claims to represent the real \"idealist philosophy\" at most\nuniversities. But most dangerous of all to the young theory\nwas the violent resistance it met almost everywhere in its own\nprovince of empirical science. The prevailing belief in the fixity\nand the independent creation of the various species was much more\nseriously menaced by Darwin's theory than it had been by Lamarck's\ntransformism. Lamarck had said substantially the same thing fifty\nyears before, but had failed to convince through the lack of\neffective evidence. Many scientists, some of great distinction,\nopposed Darwin because either they had not an adequate acquaintance\nwith the whole field of biology, or it seemed to them that his bold\nspeculation advanced too far from the secure base of experience.\n\nWhen Darwin's work appeared in 1859, and fell like a flash of\nlightning on the dark world of official biology, I was engaged in a\nscientific expedition to Sicily and taken up with a thorough study\nof the graceful radiolarians, those wonderful microscopic marine\nanimals that surpass all other organisms in the beauty and variety\nof their forms. The special study of this remarkable class of\nanimals, of which I afterwards described more than 4,000 species,\nafter more than ten years of research, provided me with one of the\nsolid foundation-stones of my Darwinian ideas. But when I returned\nfrom Messina to Berlin in the spring of 1860, I knew nothing as yet\nof Darwin's achievement. I merely heard from my friends at Berlin\nthat a remarkable work by a crazy Englishman had attracted great\nattention, and that it turned upside down all previous ideas as to\nthe origin of species.\n\nI soon perceived that almost all the experts at Berlin--chief\namongst them were the famous microscopist, Ehrenberg; the\nanatomist, Reichert; the zoologist, Peters; and the geologist,\nBeyrich--were unanimous in their condemnation of Darwin. The\nbrilliant orator of the Berlin Academy, Emil du Bois-Reymond,\nhesitated. He recognised that the theory of evolution was\nthe only natural solution of the problem of creation; but he\nlaughed at the application of it as a poor romance, and declared\nthat the phylogenetic inquiries into the relationship of the\nvarious species had about as much value as the research of\nphilologists into the genealogical tree of the Homeric heroes.\nThe distinguished botanist, Alexander Braun, stood quite alone\nin his full and warm assent to the theory of evolution. I found\ncomfort and encouragement with this dear and respected teacher,\nwhen I was deeply moved by the first reading of Darwin's book,\nand soon completely converted to his views. In Darwin's great and\nharmonious conception of Nature, and his convincing establishment\nof evolution, I had an answer to all the doubts that had beset me\nsince the beginning of my biological studies.\n\nMy famous teacher, Rudolf Virchow, whom I had met at W\u00fcrtzburg in\n1852, and was soon associated with in the most friendly relations\nas special pupil and admiring assistant, played a very curious\npart in this great controversy. I am, I think, one of those\nelderly men who have followed Virchow's development, as man and\nthinker, with the greatest interest during the last fifty years.\nI distinguish three periods in his psychological metamorphoses.\nIn the first decade of his academic life, from 1847 to 1858,\nmainly at W\u00fcrtzburg, he effected the great reform of medicine that\nculminated brilliantly in his cellular pathology. In the following\ntwenty years (1858-1877) he was chiefly occupied with politics\nand anthropology. He was at first favourable to Darwinism, then\nsceptical, and finally rejected it. His powerful and determined\nopposition to it dates from 1877, when, in is famous speech on \"The\nFreedom of Science in the Modern State,\" he struck a heavy blow\nat that freedom, denounced the theory of evolution as dangerous\nto the State, and demanded its exclusion from the schools. This\nremarkable metamorphosis is so important, and has had so much\ninfluence, yet has been so erroneously described, that I will\ndeal with it somewhat fully in the next chapter, especially as\nI have then to treat one chief problem, the descent of man from\nthe ape. For the moment, I will merely recall the fact that in\nBerlin, the \"metropolis of intelligence,\" as it has been called,\nthe theory of evolution, now generally accepted, met with a more\nstubborn resistance than in most of our other leading educational\ncentres, and that this opposition was due above all to the powerful\nauthority of Virchow.\n\nWe can only glance briefly here at the victorious struggle that\nthe idea of evolution has conducted in the last three decades of\nthe nineteenth century. The violent resistance that Darwinism\nencountered nearly everywhere in its early years was paralysed\ntowards the end of the first decade. In the years 1866-1874 many\nworks were published in which not only were the foundations of the\ntheory scientifically strengthened, but its general recognition\nwas secured by popular treatment of the subject. I made the first\nattempt in 1866, in my _General Morphology_, to present connectedly\nthe whole subject of evolution and make it the foundation of a\nconsistent Monistic philosophy; and I then gave a popular summary\nof my chief conclusions in the ten editions of my _History of\nCreation_. In my _Evolution of Man_ I made the first attempt to\napply the principles of evolution thoroughly and consistently to\nman, and to draw up a hypothetical list of his animal ancestors.\nThe three volumes of my _Systematic Phylogeny_ (1894-1896)\ncontain a fuller outline of a natural classification of organisms\non the basis of their stem-history. There have been important\ncontributions to the science of evolution in all its branches in\nthe Darwinian periodical, _Cosmos_, since 1877; and a number of\nadmirable popular works helped to spread the system.\n\nHowever, the most important and most welcome advance was made by\nscience when, in the last thirty years, the idea of evolution\npenetrated into every branch of biology, and was recognised as\nfundamental and indispensable. Thousands of new discoveries and\nobservations in all sections of botany, zoology, protistology,\nand anthropology, were brought forward as empirical evidence of\nevolution. This is especially true of the remarkable progress of\npaleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology, but it applies\nalso to physiology, chorology (the science of the distribution\nof living things), and \u0153cology (the description of the habits of\nanimals). How much our horizon was extended by these, and how\nmuch the unity of our Monistic system gained, can be seen in any\nmodern manual of biology. If we compare them with those that gave\nus extracts of natural history forty or fifty years ago, we see\nat once what an enormous advance has taken place. Even the more\nremote branches of anthropological science, ethnography, sociology,\nethics, and jurisprudence, are entering into closer relations with\nthe theory of evolution, and can no longer escape its influence. In\nview of all this, it is ridiculous for theological and metaphysical\njournals to talk, as they do, of the failure of evolution and \"the\ndeath-bed of Darwinism.\"\n\nOur science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the\nbeginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents,\nthe Churches, became reconciled to it, and endeavoured to bring\ntheir dogmas into line with it. A number of timid attempts to\ndo so had been made in the preceding ten years by different\nfree-thinking theologians and philosophers, but without much\nsuccess. The distinction of accomplishing this in a comprehensive\nand well-informed manner was reserved for a Jesuit, Father Erich\nWasmann of Luxemburg. This able and learned entomologist had\nalready earned some recognition in zoology by a series of admirable\nobservations on the life of ants, and the captives that they\nalways keep in their homes, certain very small insects which have\nthemselves been curiously modified by adaptation to their peculiar\nenvironment. He showed that these striking modifications can only\nbe rationally explained by descent from other free-living species\nof insects. The various papers in which Wasmann gave a thoroughly\nDarwinian explanation of the biological phenomena first appeared\n(1901-1903) in the Catholic periodical, _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_,\nand are now collected in a special work entitled, _Modern Biology\nand the Theory of Evolution_.\n\nThis remarkable book of Wasmann's is a masterpiece of Jesuitical\nsophistry. It really consists of three entirely different sections.\nThe first third gives, in the introduction, what is, for Catholics,\na clear and instructive account of modern biology, especially the\ncell-theory, and the theory of evolution (chapters i.-viii.). The\nsecond third, the ninth chapter, is the most valuable part of the\nwork. It has the title: \"The Theory of Fixity or the theory of\nEvolution?\" Here the learned entomologist gives an interesting\naccount of the results of his prolonged studies of the morphology\nand the \u0153cology of the ants and their captives, the myrmecophil\u00e6.\nHe shows impartially and convincingly that these complicated and\nremarkable phenomena can only be explained by evolution, and that\nthe older doctrine of the fixity and independent creation of the\nvarious species is quite untenable. With a few changes this ninth\nchapter could figure as a useful part of a work by Darwin or\nWeismann or some other evolutionist. The succeeding chapter (the\nlast third) is flagrantly inconsistent with the ninth. It deals\nmost absurdly with the application of the theory of evolution to\nman. The reader has to ask himself whether Wasmann really believes\nthese confused and ridiculous notions, or whether he merely aims at\nbefogging his readers, and so preparing the way for the acceptance\nof the conventional creed.\n\nWasmann's book has been well criticised by a number of competent\nstudents, especially by Escherich and Franc\u00e9. While fully\nrecognising his great services, they insist very strongly on\nthe great mischief wrought by this smuggling of the Jesuitical\nspirit into biology. Escherich points out at length the glaring\ninconsistencies and the obvious untruths of this \"ecclesiastical\nevolution.\" He summarises his criticism in the words: \"If the\ntheory of evolution can really be reconciled with the dogmas of the\nChurch only in the way we find here, Wasmann has clearly proved\nthat any such reconciliation is impossible. Because what Wasmann\ngives here as the theory of evolution is a thing mutilated beyond\nrecognition and incapable of any vitality.\" He tries, like a good\nJesuit, to prove that it does not tend to undermine, but to give a\nfirm foundation to, the story of supernatural creation, and that it\nwas really not Lamarck and Darwin, but St. Augustin and St. Thomas\nof Aquin, who founded the science of evolution. \"God does not\ninterfere directly in the order of Nature when he can act by means\nof natural causes.\" Man alone constitutes a remarkable exception;\nbecause \"the human soul, being a spiritual entity, cannot be\nderived from matter even by the Divine omnipotence, like the vital\nforms of the plants and animals\" (p. 299).\n\nIn an instructive article on \"Jesuitical Science\" (in the Frankfort\n_Freie Wort_, No. 22, 1904), R. H. Franc\u00e9 gives an interesting\nlist of the prominent Jesuits who are now at work in the various\nbranches of science. As he rightly says, the danger consists \"in\na systematic introduction of the Jesuitical spirit into science,\na persistent perversion of all its problems and solutions, and an\nastute undermining of its foundations; to speak more precisely,\nthe danger is that people are not sufficiently conscious of it,\nand that they, and even science itself, fall into the cleverly\nprepared pit of believing that there is such a thing as _Jesuitical\nscience_, the results of which may be taken seriously.\"[4]\n\nWhile fully recognising these dangers, I nevertheless feel that the\nJesuit Father Wasmann, and his colleagues, have--unwittingly--done\na very great service to the progress of pure science. The Catholic\nChurch, the most powerful and widespread of the Christian sects,\nsees itself compelled to capitulate to the idea of evolution. It\nembraces the most important application of the idea, Lamarck and\nDarwin's theory of descent, which it had vigorously combated until\ntwenty years ago. It does, indeed, mutilate the great tree, cutting\noff its roots and its highest branch; it rejects spontaneous\ngeneration or archigony at the bottom, and the descent of man\nfrom animal ancestors above. But these exceptions will not last.\nImpartial biology will take no notice of them, and the religious\ncreed will at length determine that the more complex species have\nbeen evolved from a series of simpler forms according to Darwinian\nprinciples. The belief in a supernatural creation is restricted\nto the production of the earliest and simplest stem-forms, from\nwhich the \"natural species\" have taken their origin; Wasmann gives\nthat name to all species that are demonstrably descended from a\ncommon stem-form; in other words, to what other classifiers call\n\"stems\" or \"phyla.\" The 4,000 species of ants in his system, which\nhe believes to be genetically related, are comprised by him in\none \"natural species.\" On the other hand, man forms one isolated\n\"natural species\" for himself, without any connection with the\nother mammals.\n\nThe Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann betrays in this ingenious\ndistinction between \"systematic and natural species\" is also\nfound in his philosophic \"Thoughts on Evolution\" (chap. viii.),\nhis distinction between philosophic and scientific evolution,\nor between evolution in one stem and in several stems. His\nremarks (in chap. vii.) on \"the cell and spontaneous generation\"\nare similarly marred by sophistry. The question of spontaneous\ngeneration or archigony--that is to say, of the first appearance of\norganic life on the earth, is one of the most difficult problems\nin biology, one of those in which the most distinguished students\nbetray a striking weakness of judgment. Dr. Heinrich Schmidt, of\nJena, has lately written an able and popular little work on that\nsubject. In his _Spontaneous Generation and Professor Reinke_\n(1903), he has shown to what absurd consequences the ecclesiastical\nideas lead on this very question. The botanist Reinke, of Kiel,\nis now regarded amongst religious people as the chief opponent of\nDarwinism; for many conservatives this is because he is a member\nof the Prussian Herrenhaus (a very intelligent body, of course!).\nAlthough he is a strong evangelical, many of his mystic deductions\nagree surprisingly with the Catholic speculations of Father\nWasmann. This is especially the case with regard to spontaneous\ngeneration. They both declare that the first appearance of life\nmust be traced to a miracle, to the work of a personal deity,\nwhom Reinke calls the \"cosmic intelligence.\" I have shown the\nunscientific character of these notions in my last two works,\n_The Riddle of the Universe_, and _The Wonders of Life_. I have\ndrawn attention especially to the widely distributed monera of the\nchromacea class--organisms of the simplest type conceivable, whose\nwhole body is merely an unnucleated, green, structureless globule\nof plasm (Chroococcus); their whole vital activity consists of\ngrowth (by forming plasm) and multiplication (by dividing into\ntwo). There is little theoretical difficulty in conceiving the\norigin of these new simple monera from inorganic compounds of\nalbumen, or their later transformation into the simplest nucleated\ncells. All this, and a good deal more that will not fit in his\nJesuitical frame, is shrewdly ignored by Wasmann.\n\nIn view of the great influence that Catholicism still has on public\nlife in Germany, through the Centre party, this change of front\nshould be a great gain to education. Virchow demanded as late as\n1877 that the dangerous doctrine of evolution should be excluded\nfrom the schools. The Ministers of Instruction of the two chief\nGerman States gratefully adopted this warning from the leader of\nthe progressive party, forbade the teaching of Darwinian ideas,\nand made every effort to check the spread of biological knowledge.\nNow, twenty-five years afterwards, the Jesuits come forward, and\ndemand the opposite. They recognise openly that the hated theory of\nevolution is established, and try to reconcile it with the creed!\nWhat an irony of history! And we find much the same story when we\nread the struggles for freedom of thought and for the recognition\nof evolution in the other educated countries of Europe.\n\nIn Italy, its cradle and home, educated people generally look\nupon the papacy with the most profound disdain. I have spent many\nyears in Italy, and have never met an educated Italian of such\nbigoted and narrow views as we usually find amongst educated\nGerman Catholics--represented with success in the Reichstag by the\nCentre party. It is proof enough of the reactionary character of\nGerman Catholics that the Pope himself describes them as his most\nvigorous soldiers, and points them out as models to the faithful\nof other nations. As the whole history of the Roman Church shows,\nthe charlatan of the Vatican is the deadly enemy of free science\nand free teaching. The present German Emperor ought to regard it as\nhis most sacred duty to maintain the tradition of the Reformation,\nand to promote the formation of the German people in the sense\nof Frederick the Great. Instead of this we have to look on with\nheavy hearts while the Emperor, badly advised and misled by those\nin influence about him, suffers himself to be caught closer and\ncloser in the net of the Catholic clergy, and sacrifices to it\nthe intelligence of the rising generation. In September, 1904,\nthe Catholic journals announced triumphantly that the adoption of\nCatholicism by the Emperor and his Chancellor was close at hand.[5]\n\nThe firmness of the belief in conventional dogmas, which hampers\nthe progress of rational enlightenment in orthodox Protestant\ncircles as well as Catholic, is often admired as an expression of\nthe deep emotion of the German people. But its real source is their\nconfusion of thought and their credulity, the power of conservative\ntradition, and the reactionary state of political education. While\nour schools are bent under the yoke of the creeds, those of our\nneighbours are free. France, the pious daughter of the Church,\ngives anxious moments to her ambitious mother. She is breaking the\nchains of the Concordat, and taking up the work of the Reformation.\nIn Germany, the birthplace of the Reformation, the Reichstag and\nthe Government vie with each other in smoothing the paths for the\nJesuits, and fostering, instead of suppressing, the intolerant\nspirit of the sectarian school. Let us hope that the latest episode\nin the history of evolution, its recognition by Jesuitical science,\nwill bring about the reverse of what they intend--the substitution\nof rational science for blind faith.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE\n\nOUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM\n\n\nEXPLANATION OF PLATE II\n\nSKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES\n\n    These skeletons of the five living genera of anthropomorpha\n    are reduced to a common size, in order to show better the\n    relative proportions of the various parts. The human skeleton\n    is 1/20th natural size, the gorilla 1/18th, the chimpanzee\n    1/7th, the orang 1/7th, the gibbon 1/9th. Young specimens of\n    the chimpanzee and orang have been selected, because they\n    approach nearer to man than the adult. No one of the living\n    anthropoid apes is nearest to man in all respects; this cannot\n    be said of either of the African (gorilla and chimpanzee) or\n    the Asiatic (orang and gibbon). This anatomic fact is explained\n    phylogenetically on the ground that none of them are direct\n    ancestors of man; they represent divergent branches of the\n    stem, of which man is the crown. However, the small gibbon is\n    nearest related to the hypothetical common ancestor of all the\n    anthropomorpha to which we give the name of Prothylobates.\n    Further information will be found in my _Last Link_ and\n    _Evolution of Man_ (chap. xxiii.).\n\n\nPLATE II.\n\nSKELETONS OF FIVE ANTHROPOID APES.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n1/20 MAN (Homo)\n\n1/18 GORILLA\n\n1/7 Young CHIMPANZEE (Anthropithecus)\n\n1/7 Young ORANG (Satyrus)\n\n1/9 GIBBON (Hylobates)]\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GENEALOGICAL TREE\n\nOUR APE-RELATIVES AND THE VERTEBRATE-STEM\n\n\nIn the previous chapter I tried to give you a general idea of\nthe present state of the controversy in regard to evolution.\nComparing the various branches of thought we found that the older\nmythological ideas of the creation of the world were driven long\nago out of the province of inorganic science, but that they did\nnot yield to the rational conception of natural development until\na much later date in the field of organic nature. Here the idea of\nevolution did not prove completely victorious until the beginning\nof the twentieth century, when its most zealous and dangerous\nopponent, the Church, was forced to admit it. Hence the open\nacknowledgment of the Jesuit, Father Wasmann, deserves careful\nattention, and we may look forward to a further development. If his\nforce of conviction and his moral courage are strong enough, he\nwill go on to draw the normal conclusions from his high scientific\nattainments and leave the Catholic Church, as the prominent\nJesuits, Count Hoensbroech and the able geologist, Professor Renard\nof Ghent, one of the workers on the deep-sea deposits in the\n_Challenger_ expedition, have lately done. But even if this does\nnot happen, his recognition of Darwinism, in the name of Christian\nbelief, will remain a landmark in the history of evolution. His\ningenious and very Jesuitical attempt to bring together the\nopposite poles will have no very mischievous effect; it will\nrather tend to hasten the victory of the scientific conception of\nevolution over the mystic beliefs of the Churches.\n\nYou will see this more clearly if we go on to consider the\nimportant special problem of the \"descent of man from the ape,\"\nand its irreconcilability with the conventional belief that God\nmade man according to His own image. That this ape or pithecoid\ntheory is an irresistible deduction from the general principle\nof evolution was clearly recognised forty-five years ago, when\nDarwin's work appeared, by the shrewd and vigilant theologians;\nit was precisely in this fact that they found their strongest\nmotive for vigorous resistance. It is quite clear. _Either_ man\nwas brought into existence, like the other animals, by a special\ncreative act, as Moses and Linn\u00e9 taught (an \"embodied idea of the\nCreator,\" as the famous Agassiz put it so late as 1858); _or_ he\nhas been developed naturally from a series of mammal ancestors, as\nis claimed by the systems of Lamarck and Darwin.\n\nIn view of the very great importance of this pithecoid theory,\nwe will first cast a brief glance at its founders and then\nsummarise the proofs in support of it. The famous French biologist,\nJean Lamarck, was the first scientist definitely to affirm the\ndescent of man from the ape and seek to give scientific proof\nof it. In his splendid work, fifty years in advance of his time,\nthe _Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809), he clearly traced the\nmodifications and advances that must have taken place in the\ntransformation of the man-like apes (the primate forms similar to\nthe orang and the chimpanzee); the adaptation to walking upright,\nthe consequent modification of the hands and feet, and later,\nthe formation of speech and the attainment of a higher degree of\nintelligence. Lamarck's remarkable theory, and this important\nconsequence of it, soon fell into oblivion. When Darwin brought\nevolution to the front again fifty years afterwards, he paid no\nattention to the special conclusion. He was content to make the\nfollowing brief prophetic observation in his work: \"Light will be\nthrown on the origin and the history of man.\" Even this innocent\nremark seemed so momentous to the first German translator of the\nwork, Bronn, that he suppressed it. When Darwin was asked by\nWallace whether he would not go more fully into it, he replied: \"I\nthink of avoiding the whole subject, as it is so much involved in\nprejudice; though I quite admit that it is the highest and most\ninteresting problem for the thinker.\"\n\nThe first thorough works of importance on the subject appeared\nin 1863. Thomas Huxley in England, and Carl Vogt in Germany,\nendeavoured to show that the descent of man from the ape was a\nnecessary consequence of Darwinism, and to provide an empirical\nbase for the theory by every available argument. Huxley's work\non _Man's Place in Nature_ was particularly valuable. He first\ngave convincingly, in three lectures, the empirical evidence on\nthe subject--the natural history of the anthropoid apes, the\nanatomical and embryological relations of man to the next lowest\nanimals, and the recently discovered fossil human remains. I then\n(1866) made the first attempt to establish the theory of evolution\ncomprehensively by research in anatomy and embryology, and to\ndetermine the chief stages in the natural classification of the\nvertebrates that must have been passed through by our earlier\nvertebrate ancestors. Anthropology thus becomes a part of zoology.\nIn my _History of Creation_ I further developed these early\nevolutionary sketches, and improvements were made in the successive\neditions.\n\nIn the meantime, the great master, Darwin, had decided to deal\nwith this chief evolutionary problem in a special work. The two\nvolumes of his _Descent of Man_ appeared in 1871. They contained an\nable discussion of sexual selection, or the selective influence of\nsexual love and high psychic activities connected therewith, and\ntheir significance in regard to the origin of man. As this part of\nDarwin's work was afterwards attacked with particular virulence, I\nwill say that, in my opinion, it is of the greatest importance, not\nonly for the general theory of evolution, but also for psychology,\nanthropology, and \u00e6sthetics.\n\nMy own feeble early efforts (1866), not only to establish the\ndescent of man from the nearest related apes, but also to determine\nmore precisely the long series of our earlier and lower vertebrate\nancestors, had not at all satisfied me. In particular, I had had to\nleave unanswered in my _General Morphology_ the very interesting\nquestion: from which invertebrate animals the vertebrate stem\noriginally came. A clear and unexpected light was thrown on it some\ntime afterwards by the astounding discoveries of Kowalevsky, which\nrevealed an essential agreement in embryonic development between\nthe lowest vertebrate (Amphioxus) and a lowly tunicate (Ascidia).\nIn the succeeding years, the numerous discoveries in connection\nwith the formation of the germinal layers in different animals so\nmuch enlarged our embryological outlook that I was able to prove\nthe complete homology of the two-layered _gastrula_ (a cup-shaped\nembryonic form) in all the tissue-forming animals (_metazoa_) in\nmy _Monograph on the Sponges_. From this I inferred, in virtue of\nthe biogenetic law, the common descent of all the metazoa from\none and the same gastrula-shaped stem-form, the _gastr\u00e6a_. This\nhypothetical stem-form, to which man's earliest multicellular\nancestors also belong, was afterwards proved by Monticelli's\nobservations to be still in existence. The evolution of these\nvery simple tissue-forming animals from still simpler unicellular\nforms (_protozoa_) is shown by the corresponding processes that\nwe witness in what is called the segmentation of the ovum or\ngastrulation, in the development of the two-layered germ from the\nsingle cell of the ovum.\n\nEncouraged by these great advances of modern phylogeny, and with\nthe support of many new discoveries in comparative anatomy and\nembryology, in which a number of distinguished observers were at\nwork, I was able in 1874 to venture on the first attempt to trace\ncontinuously the whole story of man's evolution. In doing so, I\ntook my stand on the firm ground of the biogenetic law, seeking\nto give a phylogenetic cause for each fact of embryology. My\n_Evolution of Man_, which made the first attempt to accomplish this\ndifficult task, was materially improved and enlarged as new and\nimportant discoveries were made. The latest edition (1903 [1904 in\nEnglish]) contains thirty chapters distributed in two volumes, the\nfirst of which deals with embryology (or ontogeny), and the second\nwith the development of species (or phylogeny).\n\nThough I was quite conscious that there were bound to be gaps\nand weak points in these first attempts to frame a natural\nanthropogeny, I had hoped they would have some influence on\nmodern anthropology, and especially that the first sketches of a\ngenealogical tree of the animal world would prove a stimulus to\nfresh research and improvement. In this I was much mistaken. The\ndominant school of anthropology, especially in Germany, declined to\nsuffer the introduction of the theory of evolution, declaring it to\nbe an unfounded hypothesis, and described our carefully prepared\nancestral trees as mere figments. This was due, in the first place,\nto the great authority of the founder and president (for many\nyears) of the German Anthropological Society, Rudolf Virchow, as I\nbriefly pointed out in the previous chapter. In view of the great\nregard that is felt for this distinguished scientist, and the\nextent to which his powerful opposition prevented the spread of the\ntheory, it is necessary to deal more fully with his position on the\nsubject. I am still further constrained to do this because of the\nerroneous views of it that are circulating, and my own fifty years'\nacquaintance with my eminent teacher enables me to put them right.\n\nNot one of Virchow's numerous pupils and friends can appreciate\nmore than I do his real services to medical science. His _Cellular\nPathology_ (1858), his thorough application of the cell-theory to\nthe science of disease, is, in my opinion, one of the greatest\nadvances made by modern medicine. I had the good fortune to\nbegin my medical studies at W\u00fcrzburg in 1852, and to spend six\nvaluable terms under the personal guidance of four biologists of\nthe first rank--Albert K\u00f6lliker, Rudolf Virchow, Franz Leydig\nand Carl Gegenbaur. The great stimulus that I received from\nthese distinguished masters in every branch of comparative and\nmicroscopic biology was the starting-point of my whole training\nin that science, and enabled me subsequently to follow with ease\nthe higher intellectual flight of Johannes M\u00fcller. From Virchow\nespecially I learned, not only the analytic art of careful\nobservation and judicious appreciation of the detailed facts of\nanatomy, but also the synthetic conception of the whole human\nframe, the profound conviction of the _unity_ of our nature, the\ninseparable connection of body and mind, to which Virchow gave a\nfine expression in his classic essay on \"The Efforts to bring about\nUnity in Scientific Medicine\" (1849). The leading articles which\nhe wrote at that time for the Journal of Pathological Anatomy and\nPhysiology, which he had founded, contain much new insight into the\nwonders of life, and a number of excellent general reflections on\ntheir significance--pregnant ideas that we can make direct use of\nfor Monistic purposes. In the controversy that broke out between\nempirical rationalism and materialism and the older vitalism and\nmysticism, he took the side of the former, and fought together\nwith Jacob Moleschott, Carl Vogt, and Ludwig B\u00fcchner. I owe the\nfirm conviction of the unity of organic and inorganic nature, of\nthe mechanical character of all vital and psychic activity, which\nI have always held to be the foundation of my Monistic system,\nin a great measure to Virchow's teaching and the exhaustive\nconversations I had with him when I was his assistant. The profound\nviews of the nature of the cell and the independent individuality\nof these elementary organisms, which he advanced in his great\nwork _Cellular Pathology_, remained guiding principles for me in\nthe prolonged studies that I made thirty years afterwards of the\norganisation of the radiolaria and other unicellular protists;\nand also in regard to the theory of the cell-soul, which followed\nnaturally from the psychological study of it.\n\nHis life at W\u00fcrtzburg was the most brilliant period of Virchow's\nindefatigable scientific labours. A change took place when he\nremoved to Berlin in 1856. He then occupied himself chiefly with\npolitical and social and civic interests. In the last respect\nhe has done so much for Berlin and the welfare of the German\npeople that I need not enlarge on it. Nor will I go into his\nself-sacrificing and often thankless political work as leader of\nthe progressive party; there are differences of opinion as to its\nvalue. But we must carefully examine his peculiar attitude towards\nevolution, and especially its chief application, the ape-theory.\nHe was at first favourable to it, then sceptical, and finally\ndecidedly hostile.\n\nWhen the Lamarckian theory was brought to light again by Darwin in\n1859, many thought that it was Virchow's vocation to take the lead\nin defending it. He had made a thorough study of the problem of\nheredity; he had realised the power of adaptation through his study\nof pathological changes; and he had been directed to the great\nquestion of the origin of man by his anthropological studies. He\nwas at that time regarded as a determined opponent of all dogmas;\nhe combated transcendentalism either in the form of ecclesiastical\ncreeds or anthropomorphism. After 1862 he declared that \"the\npossibility of a transition from species to species was a necessity\nof science.\" When I opened the first public discussion of Darwinism\nat the Stettin scientific congress in 1863, Virchow and Alexander\nBraun were among the few scientists who would admit the subject\nto be important and deserving of the most careful study. When I\nsent to him in 1865 two lectures that I had delivered at Jena on\nthe origin and genealogical tree of the human race, he willingly\nreceived them amongst his _Collection of Popular Scientific\nLectures_. In the course of many long conversations I had with\nhim on the matter, he agreed with me in the main, though with the\nprudent reserve and cool scepticism that characterised him. He\nadopts the same moderate attitude in the lecture that he delivered\nto the Artisans' Union at Berlin in 1869 on \"Human and Ape Skulls.\"\n\nHis position definitely changed in regard to Darwinism from 1877\nonward. At the Scientific Congress that was then held at Munich I\nhad, at the pressing request of my Munich friends, undertaken the\nfirst address (on 18th September) on \"Modern Evolution in Relation\nto the whole of Science.\" In this address I had substantially\nadvanced the same general views that I afterwards enlarged in my\n_Monism_, _Riddle of the Universe_, and _Wonders of Life_. In the\nultramontane capital of Bavaria, in sight of a great university\nwhich emphatically describes itself as Catholic, it was somewhat\nbold to make such a confession of faith. The deep impression that\nit had made was indicated by the lively manifestations of assent on\nthe one hand, and displeasure on the other, that were at once made\nin the Congress itself and in the Press. On the following day I\ndeparted for Italy (according to an arrangement made long before).\nVirchow did not come to Munich until two days afterwards, when he\ndelivered (on 22nd September, in response to entreaties from people\nof position and influence) his famous antagonistic speech on \"The\nFreedom of Science in the Modern State.\" The gist of the speech\nwas that this freedom ought to be restricted; that evolution is\nan unproved hypothesis, and ought not to be taught in the school\nbecause it is dangerous to the State: \"We must not teach,\" he said,\n\"that man descends from the ape or any other animal.\" In 1849, the\nyoung Monist, Virchow, had emphatically declared this conviction,\n\"that he would never be induced to deny the thesis of the unity\nof human nature and its consequences\"; now, twenty-eight years\nafterwards, the prudent Dualistic politician entirely denied it.\nHe had formerly taught that all the bodily and mental processes in\nthe human organism depend on the mechanism of the cell-life; now\nhe declared the soul to be a special immaterial entity. But the\ncrowning feature of this reactionary speech was his compromise with\nthe Church, which he had fought so vigorously twenty years before.\n\nThe character of Virchow's speech at Munich is best seen in the\ndelight with which it was at once received by the reactionary and\nclerical papers, and the profound concern of all Liberal journals,\neither in the political or the religious sense. When Darwin read\nthe English translation of the speech he--generally so gentle in\nhis judgments--wrote: \"Virchow's conduct is shameful, and I hope he\nwill some day feel the shame.\" In 1878, I made a full reply to it\nin my _Free Science and Free Teaching_, in which I collected the\nmost important press opinions on the matter.[6]\n\nFrom this very decided turn at Munich until his death, twenty-five\nyears afterwards, Virchow was an indefatigable and very influential\nopponent of evolution. In his annual appearances at congresses he\nhas always contested it, and has obstinately clung to his statement\nthat \"it is quite certain that man does not descend from the ape or\nany other animal.\" To the question: \"Whence does he come, then?\"\nhe had no answer, and retired to the resigned position of the\nAgnostic, which was common before Darwin's time: \"We do not know\nhow life arose, and how the various species came into the world.\"\nHis son-in-law, Professor Rabl, has tried to draw attention once\nmore to his earlier conception, and has declared that even in\nlater years Virchow often recognised the truth of evolution in\nprivate conversation. This only makes it the more regrettable that\nhe always said the contrary in public. The fact remains that ever\nsince the opponents of evolution, especially the reactionaries and\nclericals, have appealed to the authority of Virchow.\n\nThe wholly reactionary system that this led to has been well\ndescribed by Robert Drill (1902) in his _Virchow as a Reactionary_.\nHow little qualified the great pathologist was to appreciate the\nscientific bases of the pithecoid theory is clear from the absurd\nstatement he made, in the opening speech of the Vienna Congress\nof Anthropologists, in 1894, that man might just as well be\nclaimed to descend from a sheep or an elephant as from an ape. Any\ncompetent zoologist can see from this the little knowledge Virchow\nhad of systematic zoology and comparative anatomy. However, he\nretained his authority as president of the German Anthropological\nSociety, which remained impervious to Darwinian ideas. Even such\nvigorous controversialists as Carl Vogt, and such scientific\npartisans of the ape-man of Neanderthal as Schaafhausen, could\nmake no impression. Virchow's authority was equally great for\ntwenty years in the Berlin Press, both Liberal and Conservative.\nThe _Kreutzzeitung_ and the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_ were\ndelighted that \"the learned progressist was conservative in the\nbest sense of the word as regards evolution.\" The ultramontane\n_Germania_ rejoiced that the powerful representative of pure\nscience had, \"with a few strokes of his cudgel, reduced to\nimpotence\" the absurd ape-theory and its chief protagonist, Ernst\nHaeckel. The _National-Zeitung_ could not sufficiently thank the\nfree-thinking, popular leader for having lifted from us for ever\nthe oppressive mountain of the theory of simian descent. The editor\nof the _Volks-Zeitung_, Bernstein, who has done so much for the\nspread of knowledge in his excellent popular manuals of science,\nobstinately refused to admit articles that ventured to support the\nerroneous ape-theory \"refuted\" by Virchow.\n\nIt would take up too much space to attempt to give even a general\nsurvey of the remarkable and enormous literature of the subject\nthat has accumulated in the last three decades in the shape of\nthousands of learned treatises and popular articles. The greater\npart of these works have been written under the influence of\nconventional religious prejudice, and without the necessary\nacquaintance with the subject, that can only be obtained by a\nthorough training in biology. The most curious feature of them is\nthat most of the authors restrict their genealogical interests to\nthe most manlike apes, and do not deal with their origin, or with\nthe deeper roots of our common ancestral tree. They do not see the\nwood for the trees. Yet it is far easier and safer to penetrate\nthe great mysteries of our animal origin, if we look at the\nsubject from the higher standpoint of vertebrate phylogeny and go\ndeeper into the earlier records of the evolutionary history of the\nvertebrates.\n\nSince the great Lamarck established the idea of the vertebrate at\nthe beginning of the nineteenth century (1801), and his Parisian\ncolleague, Cuvier, shortly afterwards recognised the vertebrates\nas one of his four chief animal groups, the natural unity of this\nadvanced section of the animal world has not been contested. In\nall the vertebrates, from the lowest fishes and amphibians up to\nthe apes and man, we have the same type of structure, the same\ncharacteristic disposition and relations of the chief organs; and\nthey differ materially from the corresponding features in all other\nanimals. The mysterious affinities of the vertebrates induced\nGoethe, 140 years ago, long before Cuvier, to make prolonged and\nlaborious studies in their comparative anatomy at Jena and Weimar.\nJust as he had, in his _Metamorphosis of Plants_, established the\nunity of organisation by means of the leaf as the common primitive\norgan, he, in the metamorphosis of the vertebrates, found this\ncommon element in the vertebral theory of the skull. And when\nCuvier established comparative anatomy as an independent science,\nthis branch of biology was developed to such an extent by the\nclassic research of Johannes M\u00fcller, Carl Gegenbaur, Richard Owen,\nThomas Huxley, and many other morphologists, that Darwinism found\nits most powerful weapons in this arsenal. The striking differences\nof external form and internal structure that we find in the fishes,\namphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, are due to _adaptation_\nto the various uses of their organs and their environments.\nOn the other hand, the astonishing agreement in their typical\ncharacter, that persists in spite of their differences, is due to\n_inheritance_ from common ancestors.\n\nThe evidence thus afforded by comparative anatomy is so cogent that\nanyone who goes impartially and attentively through a collection of\nskeletons can convince himself at once of the morphological unity\nof the vertebrate stem. The evolutionary evidence of comparative\nontogeny, or embryology, is less easy to grasp and less accessible,\nbut not less important. It came to light at a much later date, and\nits extreme value was only made clear, by means of the biogenetic\nlaw, some forty years ago. It shows that every vertebrate, like\nevery other animal, develops from a single cell, but that the\ncourse of its embryonic development is peculiar, and characterised\nby embryonic forms that are not found in the invertebrates. We\nfind in them especially the _chordula_, or chorda-larva, a very\nsimple worm-shaped embryonic form, without limbs, head, or higher\nsense-organs; the body consists merely of six very simple primitive\norgans. From these are developed steadily the hundreds of different\nbones, muscles, and other organs that we afterwards distinguish in\nthe mature vertebrate. The remarkable and very complex course of\nthis embryonic development is essentially the same in man and the\nape, and in the amphibians and fishes. We see in it, in accordance\nwith the biogenetic law, a new and important witness to the common\ndescent of all vertebrates from a single primitive form, the\n_chord\u00e6a_.\n\nBut, important as these arguments of comparative embryology are,\none needs many years' study in the unfamiliar and difficult\nprovince of embryology before one can realise their evolutionary\nforce. There are, in fact, not a few embryologists (especially of\nthe modern school of experimental embryology) who do not succeed\nin doing so. It is otherwise with the palpable proofs that we take\nfrom a remote science, paleontology. The remarkable fossil remains\nand impressions of extinct animals and plants give us directly the\nhistorical evidence we need to understand the successive appearance\nand disappearance of the various species and groups. Geology has\nfirmly established the chronological order of the sedimentary\nrocks, which have been successively formed of mud at the floor of\nthe ocean, and has deduced their age from the thickness of the\nstrata, and determined the relative date of their formation. The\nvast period during which organic life has been developing on the\nearth runs to many million years. The number is variously estimated\nat less than a hundred or at several hundred million years.[7]\nIf we take the smaller number of 200 million years, we find them\ndistributed amongst the five chief periods of the earth's organic\ndevelopment in such a way that the earlier or archeozoic period\nabsorbs nearly one half. As the sedimentary rocks of this period,\nchiefly gneisses and crystalline schists, are in a metamorphosed\ncondition, the fossil remains in them are unrecognisable. In\nthe next succeeding strata of the paleozoic period we find the\nearliest remains of fossilised vertebrates, Silurian primitive\nfishes (selachii) and ganoids. These are followed, in the Devonian\nsystem, by the first dipneust fishes (a transitional form from the\nfishes to the amphibia). In the next, the Carboniferous system, we\nfind the first terrestrial or four-footed vertebrates--amphibians\nof the order of the stegocephala. A little later, in the Permian\nrocks, the earliest amniotes, lowly, lizard-like reptiles\n(tocosauria), make their appearance; the warm-blooded birds\nand mammals are still wanting. We have the first traces of the\nmammals in the Triassic, the earliest sedimentary rocks of the\nmesozoic age; these are of the monotreme sub-class (pantotheria\nand allotheria). They are succeeded by the first marsupials\n(prodidelphia) in the Jurassic, the ancestral forms of the\nplacentals (mallotheria), in the Cretaceous. See p. 115.\n\nBut the richest development of the mammal class takes place in\nthe next or Tertiary age. In the course of its four periods--the\neocene, oligocene, miocene, and pliocene--the mammal species\nincrease steadily in number, variety, and complexity, down to\nthe present time. From the lowest common ancestral group of the\nplacentals proceed four divergent branches, the legions of the\ncarnassia, rodents, ungulates, and primates. The primate legion\nsurpasses all the rest. In this Linn\u00e9 long ago included the\nlemurs, apes, and man. The historical order in which the various\nstages of vertebrate development make their successive appearance\ncorresponds entirely to the morphological order of their advance in\norganisation, as we have learned it from the study of comparative\nanatomy and embryology.\n\nThese paleontological facts are among the most important proofs\nof the descent of man from a long series of higher and lower\nvertebrates. There is no other explanation possible except\nevolution for the chronological succession of these classes,\nwhich is in perfect harmony with the morphological and systematic\ndistribution. The anti-evolutionists have not even attempted to\ngive any other explanation. The fishes, dipneusts, amphibians,\nreptiles, monotremes, marsupials, placentals, lemurs, apes,\nanthropoid apes, and ape-men (pithecanthropi), are inseparable\nlinks of a long ancestral chain, of which the last and most perfect\nlink is man. (_Cf._ the tables pp. 116-118.)\n\nOne of the paleontological facts I have quoted, namely, the\nlate appearance of the mammal class in geology--is particularly\nimportant. This most advanced group of the vertebrates comes on\nthe stage in the Triassic period, in the second and shorter half\nof the organic history of the earth. It is represented only by\nlow and small forms in the whole of the mesozoic age, during the\ndomination of the reptiles. Throughout this long period, which is\nestimated by some geologists at 8-11, by others at 20 or more,\nmillion years, the dominant reptile class developed its many\nremarkable and curious forms; there were swimming marine reptiles\n(halisauria), flying reptiles (pterosauria), and colossal land\nreptiles (dinosauria). It was much later, in the Tertiary period,\nthat the mammal class attained the wealth of large and advanced\nplacental forms that secured its predominance over this more recent\nperiod.\n\nThe many and thorough investigations made during the last few\ndecades into the ancestral history of the mammals have convinced\nall zoologists who were engaged in them that they may be traced\nto a common root. All the mammals, from the lowest monotremes and\nmarsupials to the ape and man, have a large number of striking\ncharacteristics in common, and these distinguish them from all\nother vertebrates: the hair and glands of the skin, the feeding of\nthe young with the mother's milk, the peculiar formation of the\nlower jaw and the ear-bones connected therewith, and other features\nin the structure of the skull; also, the possession of a knee-cap\n(_patella_), and the loss of the nucleus in the red blood-cells.\nFurther, the complete diaphragm, which entirely separates the\npectoral cavity from the abdominal, is only found in the mammals;\nin all the other vertebrates there is still an open communication\nbetween the two cavities. The monophyletic (or single) origin\nof the whole mammalian class is therefore now regarded by all\ncompetent experts as an established fact.\n\nIn the face of this important fact, what is called the\n\"ape-question\" loses a good deal of the importance that was\nformerly ascribed to it. All the momentous consequences that follow\nfrom it in regard to our human nature, our past and future, and our\nbodily and psychic life, remain undisturbed whether we derive man\ndirectly from one of the primates, an ape or lemur, or from some\nother branch, some unknown lower form, of the mammalian stem. It is\nimportant to point this out, because certain dangerous attempts\nhave been made lately by Jesuitical zoologists and zoological\nJesuits to cause fresh confusion on the matter.\n\nIn a richly illustrated and widely read work that Hans Kraemer\npublished a few years ago, under the title, _The Universe and\nMan_, an able and learned anthropologist, Professor Klaatsch of\nHeidelberg, deals with \"the origin and development of the human\nrace,\" and admirably describes the primitive history of man and\nhis civilisation. However, he denounces the idea of man's descent\nfrom the ape as \"irrational, narrow-minded, and false\"; he grounds\nthis severe censure on the fact that none of the living apes can\nbe the ancestor of humanity. But no competent scientist had ever\nsaid anything so foolish. If we look closer into this fight with\nwindmills, we find that Klaatsch holds substantially the same\nview of the pithecoid theory as I have done since 1866. He says\nexpressly: \"The three anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee,\nand orang, seem to diverge from a common root, which was near\nto that of the gibbon and man.\" I had long ago given the name\nof _archiprimas_ to this single hypothetical root-form of the\nprimates, which he calls the \"primatoid.\" It lived in the earliest\npart of the Tertiary period, and had probably been developed in\nthe Cretaceous from older mammals. The very forced and unnatural\nhypothesis by means of which Klaatsch goes on to make the primates\ndepart very widely from the other mammals, seems to me to be quite\nuntenable, like the similar hypothesis that Alsberg, Wilser, and\nother anthropologists who deny our pithecoid descent, have lately\nadvanced.\n\nAll these attempts have a common object--to save man's privileged\nposition in Nature, to widen as much as possible the gulf between\nhim and the rest of the mammals, and to conceal his real origin. It\nis the familiar tendency of the _parvenu_, which we so often notice\nin the aristocratic sons of energetic men who have won a high\nposition by their own exertions. This sort of vanity is acceptable\nenough to the ruling powers and the Churches, because it tends\nto support their own fossilised pretensions to a \"Divine image\"\nin man and a special \"Divine grace\" in princes. The zoologist or\nanthropologist who studies our genealogy in a strictly scientific\nspirit takes no more notice of these tendencies than of the\n_Almanach de Gotha_. He seeks to discover the naked truth, as it\nis yielded by the great results of modern science, in which there\nis no longer any doubt that man is really a descendant of the\nape--that is to say, of a long extinct anthropoid ape. As has been\npointed out over and over again by distinguished supporters of this\nopinion, the proofs of it are exceptionally clear and simple--much\nclearer and simpler than they are in regard to many other mammals.\nThus, for instance, the origin of the elephants, the armadilloes,\nthe sirena, or the whales, is a much more difficult problem than\nthe origin of man.\n\nWhen Huxley published his powerful essay on \"Man's Place in Nature\"\nin 1863, he gave it a frontispiece showing the skeletons of man and\nthe four living anthropoid apes, the Asiatic orang and gibbon,\nand the African chimpanzee and gorilla. Plate II. in the present\nwork differs from this in giving two young specimens of the orang\nand the chimpanzee, and raising their size to correspond with the\nother three skeletons. Candid comparison of these five skeletons\nshows that they are not only very like each other generally, but\nare _identical_ in the structure, arrangement, and connection of\nall the parts. The same 200 bones compose the skeleton in man and\nin the four tailless anthropoid apes, our nearest relatives. The\nsame 300 muscles serve to move the various parts of the skeleton.\nThe same hair covers the skin; the same mammary glands provide\nfood for the young. The same four-chambered heart acts as central\npump of the circulation; the same 32 teeth are found in our jaws;\nthe same reproductive organs maintain the species; the same groups\nof neurona or ganglionic cells compose the wondrous structure\nof the brain, and accomplish that highest function of the plasm\nwhich we call the soul, and many still believe to be an immortal\nentity. Huxley has thoroughly established this profound truth, and\nby further comparison with the lower apes and lemurs he came to\nformulate his important pithecometra principle: \"Whatever organ\nwe take, the differences between man and the anthropoid apes are\nslighter than the corresponding differences between the latter\nand the lower apes.\" If we make a superficial comparison of our\nskeletons of the anthropomorpha, we certainly notice a few salient\ndifferences in the size of the various parts; but these are purely\nquantitative, and are due to differences in growth, which in turn\nare caused by adaptation to different environments. There are, as\nis well known, similar differences between human beings; their arms\nare sometimes long, sometimes short; the forehead may be high or\nlow, the hair thick or thin, and so on.\n\nThese anatomic proofs of the pithecoid theory are most happily\nsupplemented and confirmed by certain recent brilliant discoveries\nin physiology. Chief amongst these are the famous experiments of\nDr. Hans Friedenthal at Berlin. He showed that the human blood acts\npoisonously on and decomposes the blood of the lower apes and other\nmammals, but has not that effect on the blood of the anthropoid\napes.[8]\n\nFrom previous transfusion experiments it had been learned that the\naffinity of mammals is connected to a certain extent with their\nchemical blood-relationship. If the living blood of two nearly\nrelated animals of the same family, such as the dog and the fox, or\nthe rabbit and the hare, is mixed together, the living blood-cells\nof each species remain uninfluenced. But if we mix the blood of the\ndog and the rabbit, or the fox and the hare, a struggle for life\nimmediately takes place between the two kinds of blood-cells. The\nwatery fluid or serum destroys the blood-cells of the rodent, and\n_vice vers\u00e2_. It is the same with specimens of the blood of the\nvarious primates. The blood of the lower apes and lemurs, which are\nclose to the common root of the primate stem, has a destructive\neffect on the blood of the anthropoid apes and man, and _vice\nvers\u00e2_. On the other hand, the human blood has no injurious effect\nwhen it is mixed with that of the anthropoid apes.\n\nIn recent years these interesting experiments have been continued\nby other physiologists and physicians, such as Professor Uhlenhuth\nat Greifswald and Nuttall at London, and they have proved directly\nthe blood-relationship of various mammals. Nuttall studied them\ncarefully in 900 different kinds of blood, which he tested by\n16,000 reactions. He traced the gradation of affinity to the\nlowest apes of the New World; and Uhlenhuth continued as far\nas the lemurs. By these results the affinity of man and the\nanthropoid apes, long established by anatomy, has now been proved\nphysiologically to be in real \"blood-relationship.\"[9]\n\nNot less important are the embryological discoveries of the\ndeceased zoologist, Emil Selenka. He made two long journeys to the\nEast Indies, in order to study on the spot the embryology of the\nAsiatic anthropoid apes, the orang and gibbon. By means of a number\nof embryos that he collected he showed that certain remarkable\npeculiarities in the formation of the placenta, that had up to\nthat time been considered as exclusively human, and regarded as a\nspecial distinction of our species, were found in just the same way\nin the closely related anthropoid apes, though not in the rest of\nthe apes. On the ground of these and other facts, I maintain that\nthe descent of man from extinct Tertiary anthropoid apes is proved\njust as plainly as the descent of birds from reptiles, or the\ndescent of reptiles from amphibians, which no zoologist hesitates\nto admit to-day. The relationship is as close as was claimed by my\nformer fellow-student, the Berlin anatomist, Robert Hartmann (with\nwhom I sat at the feet of Johannes M\u00fcller fifty years ago), in his\nadmirable work on the anthropoid apes (1883). He proposed to divide\nthe order of primates into two families, the _primarii_ (man and\nthe anthropoid apes), and _simian\u00e6_ (the real apes, the catarrhine\nor eastern, and the platyrrhine or western apes).\n\nSince the Dutch physician, Eugen Dubois, discovered the famous\nremains of the fossil ape-man (_pithecanthropus erectus_) eleven\nyears ago in Java, and thus brought to light \"the missing\nlink,\" a large number of works have been published on this very\ninteresting group of the primates. In this connection we may\nparticularly note the demonstration by the Strassburg anatomist,\nGustav Schwalbe, that the previously discovered Neanderthal skull\nbelongs to an extinct species of man, which was midway between the\npithecanthropus and the true human being--the _homo primigenus_.\nAfter a very careful examination, Schwalbe at the same time refuted\nall the biassed objections that Virchow had made to these and\nother fossil discoveries, trying to represent them as pathological\nabnormalities. In all the important relics of fossil men that\nprove our descent from anthropoid apes Virchow saw pathological\nmodifications, due to unsound habits, gout, rickets, or other\ndiseases of the dwellers in the diluvial caves. He tried in every\nway to impair the force of the arguments for our primate affinity.\nSo in the controversy over the pithecanthropus he raised the most\nimprobable conjectures, merely for the purpose of destroying its\nsignificance as a real link between the anthropoid apes and man.\n\nEven now, in the controversy over this important ape-question,\namateurs and biassed anthropologists often repeat the false\nstatement that the gap between man and the anthropoid ape is not\nyet filled up and the \"missing link\" not yet discovered. This is a\nmost perverse statement, and can only arise either from ignorance\nof the anatomical, embryological, and paleontological facts, or\nincompetence to interpret them aright. As a fact, the morphological\nchain that stretches from the lemurs to the earlier western\napes, from these to the eastern tailed apes, and to the tailless\nanthropoid apes, and from these direct to man, is now uninterrupted\nand clear. It would be more plausible to speak of missing links\nbetween the earliest lemurs and their marsupial ancestors, or\nbetween the latter and their monotreme ancestors. But even these\ngaps are unimportant, because comparative anatomy and embryology,\nwith the support of paleontology, have dissipated all doubt as\nto the _unity of the mammalian stem_. It is ridiculous to expect\npaleontology to furnish an unbroken series of positive data, when\nwe remember how scanty and imperfect its material is.\n\nI cannot go further here into the interesting recent research in\nregard to special aspects of our simian descent; nor would it\ngreatly advance our object, because all the general conclusions as\nto man's primate descent remain intact, whichever way we construct\nhypothetically the special lines of simian evolution. On the other\nhand, it is interesting for us to see how the most recent form of\nDarwinism, so happily described by Escherich as \"ecclesiastical\nevolution,\" stands in regard to these great questions. What does\nits astutest representative, Father Erich Wasmann, say about\nthem? The tenth chapter of his work, in which he deals at length\nwith \"the application of the theory of evolution to man,\" is a\nmasterpiece of Jesuitical science, calculated to throw the clearest\ntruths into such confusion and so to misrepresent all discoveries\nas to prevent any reader from forming a clear idea of them. When\nwe compare this tenth chapter with the ninth, in which Wasmann\nrepresents the theory of evolution as an irresistible truth on the\nstrength of his own able studies, we can hardly believe that they\nboth came from the same pen--or, rather, we can only understand\nwhen we recollect the rule of the Jesuit Congregation: \"The end\njustifies the means.\" Untruth is permitted and meritorious in the\nservice of God and his Church.\n\nThe Jesuitical sophistry that Wasmann employs in order to save\nman's unique position in Nature, and to prove that he was\nimmediately created by God, culminates in the antithesis of\nhis two natures. The \"purely zoological conception of man,\"\nwhich has been established beyond question by the anatomical and\nembryological comparison with the ape, is said to fail because it\ndoes not take into account the chief feature, his \"mental life.\"\nIt is \"psychology that is best fitted to deal with the nature and\norigin of man.\" All the facts of anatomy and embryology that I\nhave gathered together in my _Evolution of Man_ in proof of the\nseries of his ancestors are either ignored or misconstrued and\nmade ridiculous by Wasmann. The same is done with the instructive\nfacts of anthropology, especially the rudimentary organs, which\nRobert Wiedersheim has quoted in his _Man's Structure as a\nWitness to his Past_. It is clear that the Jesuit writer lacks\ncompetence in this department; that he has only a superficial and\ninadequate acquaintance with comparative anatomy and embryology. If\nWasmann had studied the morphology and physiology of the mammals\nas thoroughly as those of the ants, he would have concluded,\nif he were impartial, that it is just as necessary to admit a\nmonophyletic (or single) origin for the former as for the latter.\nIf, in Wasmann's opinion, the 4,000 species of ants form a single\n\"natural system\"--that is to say, descend from one original\nspecies--it is just as necessary to admit the same hypothesis for\nthe 6,000 (2,400 living and 3,600 fossil) species of mammals,\nincluding the human species.\n\nThe severe strictures that I have passed on the sophisms and\ntrickery of this \"ecclesiastical evolution\" are not directed\nagainst the person and the character of Father Wasmann, but the\nJesuitical system which he represents. I do not doubt that this\nable naturalist (who is personally unknown to me) has written his\nbook in good faith, and has an honourable ambition to reconcile the\nirreconcilable contradictions between natural evolution and the\nstory of supernatural creation. But this reconciliation of reason\nand superstition is only possible at the price of a sacrifice\nof the reason itself. We find this in the case of all the other\nJesuits--Fathers Cathrein, Braun, Besmer, Cornet, Linsmeier, and\nMuckermann--whose ambiguous \"Jesuitical science\" is aptly dealt\nwith in the article of R. H. Franc\u00e9 that I mentioned before (No. 22\nof the _Freie Wort_, 16th February, 1904, Frankfort).\n\nThis interesting attempt of Father Wasmann's does not stand alone.\nSigns are multiplying that the Church militant is about to enter on\na systematic campaign. I heard from Vienna on the 17th of February,\nthat on the previous day (which happened to be my birthday), a\nJesuit, Father Giese, had, in a well-received address, admitted\nnot only evolution in general, but even its application to man,\nand declared it to be reconcilable with Catholic dogmas--and this\nat a crowded meeting of \"catechists\"! It is important to note that\nin a new Catholic cyclop\u00e6dia, Benziger's _Library of Science_,\nthe first three volumes (issued at Einsiedeln and Cologne, 1904)\ndeal very fully and ably with the chief problems of evolution: the\nfirst with the formation of the earth, the second with spontaneous\ngeneration, the third with the theory of descent. The author of\nthem, Father M. Gander, makes most remarkable concessions to our\ntheory, and endeavours to show that they are not inconsistent\nwith the Bible or the dogmatic treatises of the chief fathers\nand schoolmen. But, though there is a profuse expenditure of\nsophistical logic in these Jesuitical efforts, Gander will hardly\nsucceed in misleading thoughtful people. One of his characteristic\npositions is that spontaneous generation (as the development\nof organised living things by purely material processes) is\ninconceivable, but that it might be made possible \"by a special\nDivine arrangement.\" In regard to the descent of man from other\nanimals (which he grants), he makes the reserve that the soul must\nin any case have been produced by a special creative act.\n\nIt would be useless to go through the innumerable fallacies\nand untruths of these modern Jesuits in detail, and point out\nthe rational and scientific reply. The vast power of this most\ndangerous religious congregation consists precisely in its device\nof accepting one part of science in order to destroy the other part\nmore effectively with it. Their masterly act of sophistry, their\nequivocal \"probabilism,\" their mendacious \"reservatio mentalis,\"\nthe principle that the higher aim sanctifies the worst means, the\npernicious casuistry of Liguori and Gury, the cynicism with which\nthey turn the holiest principles to the gratification of their\nambition, have impressed on the Jesuits that black character that\nCarl Hoensbroech has so well exposed recently.\n\nThe great dangers that menace real science, owing to this smuggling\ninto it of the Jesuitical spirit, must not be undervalued. They\nhave been well pointed out by Franc\u00e9, Escherich, and others.\nThey are all the greater in Germany at the present time, as the\nGovernment and the Reichstag are working together to prepare the\nway for the Jesuits, and to yield a most pernicious influence\non the school to these deadly enemies of the free spirit of\nthe country. However, we will hope that this clerical reaction\nrepresents only a passing episode in modern history. We trust that\none permanent result of it will be the recognition, in principle,\neven by the Jesuits, of the great idea of evolution. We may then\nrest assured that its most important consequence, the descent of\nman from other primate forms, will press on victoriously, and soon\nbe recognised as a beneficent and helpful truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL\n\nTHE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD\n\n\nEXPLANATION OF PLATE III\n\nEMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS AT THREE CORRESPONDING STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT\n\n    The embryos of man (M), the anthropoid ape (gibbon, G), and\n    the bat (rhinolophus, B) can hardly be distinguished in the\n    earlier stage (the upper row), although the five cerebral\n    vesicles, the gill-clefts, and the three higher sense-organs\n    are already visible. On the curved dorsal surface we see the\n    sections of the primitive vertebr\u00e6. Even later, when the two\n    pairs of limbs have appeared in the form of roundish fins (the\n    middle row), the differences are not great. It is not until\n    a further development of the limbs and head has taken place\n    (lowest row) that the characteristic forms are clearly seen. It\n    is particularly notable that the primitive brain, the organ of\n    the mind, with its five cerebral vesicles, is the same in all.\n\n\nPLATE III.\n\n[Illustration: EMBRYOS OF THREE MAMMALS\n\n(_At three corresponding stages of development_).\n\nB = BAT (Rhinolophus)     G = GIBBON (Hylobates)     M = MAN (Homo)]\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOUL\n\nTHE IDEAS OF IMMORTALITY AND GOD\n\n\nThough it was my original intention to deliver only two lectures, I\nhave been moved by several reasons to add a supplementary one. In\nthe first place, I notice with regret that I have been compelled\nby pressure of time to leave untouched in my earlier lectures, or\nto treat very inadequately, several important points in my theme;\nthere is, in particular, the very important question of the nature\nof the soul. In the second place, I have been convinced by the\nmany contradictory press-notices during the last few days that\nmany of my incomplete observations have been misunderstood or\nmisinterpreted. And, thirdly, it seemed advisable to give a brief\nand clear summary of the whole subject in this farewell lecture,\nto take a short survey of the past, present, and future of the\ntheory of evolution, and especially its relation to the three great\nquestions of personal immortality, the freedom of the will, and the\npersonality of God.\n\nI must claim the reader's patience and indulgence even to a greater\nextent than in the previous chapters, as the subject is one of the\nmost difficult and obscure that the human mind approaches. I have\ndealt at length in my recent works, _The Riddle of the Universe_\nand _The Wonders of Life_, with the controversial questions of\nbiology that I treat cursorily here. But I would like to put before\nyou now, in a general survey, the powerful arguments that modern\nscience employs against the prevailing superstition in regard to\nevolution, and to show that the Monistic system throws a clear\nlight on the great questions of God and the world, the soul and\nlife.\n\nIn the previous chapters I have tried to give a general idea of\nthe present state of the theory of evolution and its victorious\nstruggle with the older legend of creation. We have seen that\neven the most advanced organism, man, was not brought into being\nby a creative act, but gradually developed from a long series of\nmammal ancestors. We also saw that the most man-like mammals,\nthe anthropoid apes, have substantially the same structure as\nman, and that the evolution of the latter from the former can\nnow be regarded as a fully established hypothesis, or, rather,\nan historical fact. But in this study we had in view mainly the\nstructure of the body and its various organs. We touched very\nbriefly on the evolution of the human mind, or the immaterial\nsoul that dwells in the body for a time, according to a venerable\ntradition. To-day we turn chiefly to the development of the soul,\nand consider whether man's mental development is controlled by\nthe same natural laws as that of his body, and whether it also is\ninseparably bound up with that of the rest of the mammals.\n\nAt the very threshold of this difficult province we encounter\nthe curious fact that there are two radically distinct tendencies\nin psychology at our universities to-day. On one side we have the\nmetaphysical and professional psychologists. They still cling\nto the older view that man's soul is a special entity, a unique\nindependent individuality, which dwells for a time only in the\nmortal frame, leaving it and living on as an immortal spirit after\ndeath. This dualistic theory is connected with the doctrine of\nmost religions, and owes its high authority to the fact that it is\nassociated with the most important ethical, social, and practical\ninterests. Plato gave prominence to the idea of the immortality of\nthe soul in philosophy long ago. Descartes at a later date gave\nemphasis to it by ascribing a true soul to man alone and refusing\nit to the animals.\n\nThis metaphysical psychology, which ruled alone for a considerable\nperiod, began to be opposed in the eighteenth, and still more in\nthe nineteenth, century by _comparative psychology_. An impartial\ncomparison of the psychic processes in the higher and lower animals\nproved that there were numerous transitions and gradations. A long\nseries of intermediate stages connects the psychic life of the\nhigher animals with that of man on the one side, and that of the\nlower animals on the other. There was no such thing as a sharp\ndividing line, as Descartes supposed.\n\nBut the greatest blow was dealt at the predominant metaphysical\nconception of the life of the soul thirty years ago by the\nnew methods of _psychophysics_. By means of a series of able\nexperiments the physiologists, Theodor Fechner and Ernst Heinrich\nWeber of Leipsic, showed that an important part of the mental\nactivity can be measured and expressed in mathematical formul\u00e6\njust as well as other physiological processes, such as muscular\ncontractions. Thus the laws of physics control a part of the\nlife of the soul just as absolutely as they do the phenomena of\ninorganic nature. It is true that psychophysics has only partially\nrealised the very high expectations that were entertained in regard\nto its Monistic significance; but the fact remains that a part of\nthe mental life is just as unconditionally ruled by physical laws\nas any other natural phenomena.\n\nThus _physiological psychology_ was raised by psychophysics to\nthe rank of a physical and, in principle, exact science. But it\nhad already obtained solid foundations in other provinces of\nbiology. Comparative psychology had traced connectedly the long\ngradation from man to the higher animals, from these to the lower,\nand so on down to the very lowest. At the lowest stage it found\nthose remarkable beings, invisible with the naked eye, that were\ndiscovered in stagnant water everywhere after the invention of\nthe microscope (in the second half of the seventeenth century)\nand called \"infusoria.\" They were first accurately described and\nclassified by Gottfried Ehrenberg, the famous Berlin microscopist.\nIn 1838 he published a large and beautiful work, illustrating on\n64 folio pages the whole realm of microscopic life; and this is\nstill the base of all studies of the protists. Ehrenberg was a very\nardent and imaginative observer, and succeeded in communicating\nhis zeal for the study of microscopic organisms to his pupils. I\nstill recall with pleasure the stimulating excursions that I made\nfifty years ago (in the summer of 1854) with my teacher, Ehrenberg,\nand a few other pupils--including my student-friend, Ferdinand von\nRichthofen, the famous geographer--to the Zoological Gardens at\nBerlin. Equipped with fine nets and small glasses, we fished in\nthe ponds of the Zoological Gardens and in the Spree, and caught\nthousands of invisible micro-organisms, which then richly rewarded\nour curiosity by the beautiful forms and mysterious movements they\ndisclosed under the microscope.\n\nThe way in which Ehrenberg explained to us the structure and the\nvital movements of his infusoria was very curious. Misled by the\ncomparison of the real infusoria with the microscopic but highly\norganised rotifers, he had formed the idea that all animals are\nalike advanced in organisation, and had indicated this erroneous\ntheory in the very title of his work: _The Infusoria as Perfect\nOrganisms: a Glance at the Deeper Life of Organic Nature_. He\nthought he could detect in the simplest infusoria the same distinct\norgans as in the higher animals--stomach, heart, ovaries, kidneys,\nmuscles, and nerves--and he interpreted their psychic life on the\nsame peculiar principle of equally advanced organisation.\n\nEhrenberg's theory of life was entirely wrong, and was radically\ndestroyed in the hour of its birth (1838) by the cell-theory which\nwas then formulated, and to which he never became reconciled. Once\nMatthias Schleiden had shown the composition of all the plants,\ntissues, and organs from microscopic cells, the last structural\nelements of the living organism, and Theodor Schwann had done the\nsame for the animal body, the theory attained such an importance\nthat K\u00f6lliker and Leydig based on it the modern science of tissues,\nor histology, and Virchow constructed his cellular pathology by\napplying it to diseased human beings. These are the most important\nadvances of theoretical medicine. But it was still a long time\nbefore the difficult question of the relation of these microscopic\nbeings to the cell was answered. Carl Theodor von Siebold had\nalready maintained (in 1845) that the real infusoria and the\nclosely related rhizopods were _unicellular organisms_, and had\ndistinguished these _protozoa_ from the rest of the animals.\nAt the same time, Carl Naegeli had described the lowest alg\u00e6\nas \"unicellular plants.\" But this important conception was not\ngenerally admitted until some time afterwards, especially after I\nbrought all the unicellular organisms under the head of \"protists\"\n(1872), and defined their psychic functions as the \"cell-soul.\"\n\nI was led to make a very close study of these unicellular\nprotists and their primitive cell-soul through my research on the\nradiolaria, a very remarkable class of microscopic organisms that\nfloat in the sea. I was engaged most of my time for more than\nthirty of the best years of my life (1856-87) in studying them\nin every aspect, and if I came eventually to adopt a strictly\nMonistic attitude on all the great questions of biology, I owe it\nfor the most part to my innumerable observations and uninterrupted\nreflections on the wonderful vital movements that are disclosed by\nthese smallest and frailest, and at the same time most beautiful\nand varied, of living things.\n\nI had undertaken the study of the radiolaria as a kind of souvenir\nof my great master, Johannes M\u00fcller. He had loved to study these\nanimals (of which only a few species were discovered for the first\ntime in the year of my birth, 1834) in the last years of his\nlife, and had in 1855 set up the special group of the rhizopods\n(protozoa). His last work, which appeared shortly after his death\n(1858), and contained a description of 50 species of radiolaria,\nwent with me to the Mediterranean when I made my first long voyage\nin the summer of 1859. I was so fortunate as to discover about 150\nnew species of radiolaria at Messina, and based on these my first\nmonograph of this very instructive class of protists (1862). I\nhad no suspicion at that time that fifteen years afterwards the\ndeep-sea finds of the famous _Challenger_ expedition would bring\nto light an incalculable wealth of these remarkable animals. In my\nsecond monograph on them (1887), I was able to describe more than\n4,000 different species of radiolaria, and illustrate most of them\non 140 plates. I have given a selection of the prettiest forms on\nten plates of my _Art-forms in Nature_.\n\nI have not space here to go into the forms and vital movements of\nthe radiolaria, of the general import of which my friend, Wilhelm\nB\u00f6lsche, has given a very attractive account in his various\npopular works. I must restrict myself to pointing out the general\nphenomena that bear upon our particular subject, the question of\nthe mind. The pretty flinty skeletons of the radiolaria, which\nenclose and protect the soft unicellular body, are remarkable, not\nonly for their extraordinary gracefulness and beauty, but also\nfor the geometrical regularity and relative constancy of their\nforms. The 4,000 species of radiolaria are just as constant as the\n4,000 known species of ants; and, as the Darwinian Jesuit, Father\nWasmann, has convinced himself that the latter have all descended\nby transformation from a common stem-form, I have concluded on the\nsame principles that the 4,000 species of radiolaria have developed\nfrom a primitive form in virtue of adaptation and heredity. This\nprimitive form, the stem-radiolarian (_Actissa_) is a simple round\ncell, the soft living protoplasmic body of which is divided into\ntwo different parts, an inner central capsule (in the middle of\nwhich is the solid round nucleus) and an outer gelatinous envelope\n(_calymma_). From the outer surface of the latter, hundreds and\nthousands of fine plasmic threads radiate; these are mobile and\nsensitive processes of the living internal substance, the plasm (or\nprotoplasm). These delicate microscopic threads, or pseudopodia,\nare the curious organs that effect the sensations (of touch),\nthe locomotion (by pushing), and the orderly construction of the\nflinty house; at the same time, they maintain the nourishment of\nthe unicellular body, by seizing infusoria, diatoms, and other\nprotists, and drawing them within the plasmic body, where they\nare digested and assimilated. The radiolaria generally reproduce\nby the formation of spores. The nucleus within the protoplasmic\nglobule divides into two small nuclei, each of which surrounds\nitself with a quantity of plasm, and forms a new cell.\n\nWhat is this plasm? What is this mysterious \"living substance\"\nthat we find everywhere as the material foundation of the \"wonders\nof life\"? Plasm, or protoplasm, is, as Huxley rightly said\nthirty years ago, \"the physical basis of organic life\"; to speak\nmore precisely, it is a chemical compound of carbon that alone\naccomplishes the various processes of life. In its simplest form\nthe living cell is merely a soft globule of plasm, containing\na firmer nucleus. The inner nuclear matter (called caryoplasm)\ndiffers somewhat in chemical composition from the outer cellular\nmatter (or cytoplasm); but both substances are composed of carbon,\noxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur; both belong to the\nremarkable group of the albuminates, the nitrogenous carbonates\nthat are distinguished for the extraordinary size of their\nmolecules and the unstable arrangement of the numerous atoms (more\nthan a thousand) that compose them.\n\nThere are, however, still simpler organisms in which the nucleus\nand the body of the cell have not yet been differentiated. These\nare the _monera_, the whole living body of which is merely a\nhomogeneous particle of plasm (the chromacea and bacteria). The\nwell-known bacteria which now play so important a part as the\ncauses of most dangerous infectious diseases, and the agents of\nputrefaction, fermentation, etc., show very clearly that organic\nlife is only a chemical and physical process, and not the outcome\nof a mysterious \"vital force.\"\n\nWe see this still more clearly in our radiolaria, and at the same\ntime they show us unmistakably that even the psychic activity is\nsuch a physico-chemical process. All the different functions of\ntheir cell-soul, the sense-perception of stimuli, the movement\nof their plasm, their nutrition, growth, and reproduction, are\ndetermined by the particular chemical composition of each of the\n4,000 species; and they have all descended, in virtue of adaptation\nand heredity, from the common stem-form of the naked, round\nparent-radiolarian (_Actissa_).\n\nWe may instance, as a peculiarly interesting fact in the psychic\nlife of the unicellular radiolaria, the extraordinary power of\nmemory in them. The relative constancy with which the 4,000\nspecies transmit the orderly and often very complex form of their\nprotective flinty structure from generation to generation can\nonly be explained by admitting in the builders, the invisible\nplasma-molecules of the pseudopodia, a fine \"plastic sense of\ndistance,\" and a tenacious recollection of the architectural\npower of their fathers. The fine, formless plasma-threads are\nalways building afresh the same delicate flinty shells with an\nartistic trellis-work, and with protective radiating needles\nand supports always at the same points of their surface. The\nphysiologist, Ewald Hering (of Leipsic), had spoken in 1870 of\nmemory as \"a general function of organised matter.\" I myself had\ntried to explain the molecular features of heredity by the memory\nof the plasma-molecules, in my essay on \"The Perigenesis of the\nPlastidules\" (1875). Recently one of the ablest of my pupils,\nProfessor Richard Semon (of Munich, 1904), made a profound study\nof \"Mneme as the principle of constancy in the changes of organic\nphenomena,\" and reduced the mechanical process of reproduction to a\npurely physiological base.\n\nFrom the cell-soul and its memory in the radiolaria and other\nunicellular protists, we pass directly to the similar phenomenon in\nthe ovum, the unicellular starting-point of the individual life,\nfrom which the complex multicellular frame of all the histona, or\ntissue-forming animals and plants, is developed. Even the human\norganism is at first a simple nucleated globule of plasm, about\n1/125 inch in diameter, barely visible to the naked eye as a tiny\npoint. This stem-cell (_cytula_) is formed at the moment when the\novum is fertilised, or mingled with the small male spermatozoon.\nThe ovum transmits to the child by heredity the personal traits of\nthe mother, the sperm-cell those of the father; and this hereditary\ntransmission extends to the finest characteristics of the soul as\nwell as of the body. The modern research as to heredity, which\noccupies so much space now in biological literature, but was only\nstarted by Darwin in 1859, is directed immediately to the visible\nmaterial processes of impregnation.\n\nThe very interesting and important phenomena of impregnation have\nonly been known to us in detail for thirty years. It has been\nshown conclusively, after a number of delicate investigations,\nthat the individual development of the embryo from the stem-cell\nor fertilised ovum is controlled by the same laws in all cases.\nThe stem-cell divides and subdivides rapidly into a number of\nsimple cells. From these a few simple organs, the germinal layers,\nare formed at first; later on the various organs, of which there\nis no trace in the early embryo, are built up out of these. The\nbiogenetic law teaches us how, in this development, the original\nfeatures of the ancestral history are reproduced or recapitulated\nin the embryonic processes; and these facts in turn can only be\nexplained by the unconscious memory of the plasm, the \"_mneme_ of\nthe living substance\" in the germ-cells, and especially in their\nnuclei.\n\nOne important result of these modern discoveries was the prominence\ngiven to the fact that the personal soul has a beginning of\nexistence, and that we can determine the precise moment in which\nthis takes place; it is when the parent cells, the ovum and\nspermatozoon, coalesce. Hence what we call the soul of man or the\nanimal has not pre-existed, but begins its career at the moment of\nimpregnation; it is bound up with the chemical constitution of the\nplasm, which is the material vehicle of heredity in the nucleus of\nthe maternal ovum and the paternal spermatozoon. One cannot see how\na being that thus has a beginning of existence can afterwards prove\nto be \"immortal.\"\n\nFurther, a candid examination of the simple cell-soul in the\nunicellular infusoria, and of the dawn of the individual soul in\nthe unicellular germ of man and the higher animals, proves at once\nthat psychic action does not necessarily postulate a fully formed\nnervous system, as was previously believed. There is no such system\nin many of the lower animals, or any of the plants, yet we find\npsychic activities, especially sensation, irritability, and reflex\naction everywhere. All living plasm has a psychic life, and in this\nsense the psyche is a partial function of organic life generally.\nBut the higher psychic functions, particularly the phenomena of\nconsciousness, only appear gradually in the higher animals, in\nwhich (in consequence of a division of labour among the organs) the\nnervous system has assumed these functions.\n\nIt is particularly interesting to glance at the central nervous\nsystem of the vertebrates, the great stem of which we regard\nourselves as the crowning point. Here again the anatomical and\nembryological facts speak a clear and unambiguous language. In all\nvertebrates, from the lowest fishes up to man, the psychic organ\nmakes its appearance in the embryo in the same form--a simple\ncylindrical tube on the dorsal side of the embryonic body, in\nthe middle line. The anterior section of this \"medullary tube\"\nexpands into a club-shaped vesicle, which is the beginning of\nthe brain; the posterior and thinner section becomes the spinal\ncord. The cerebral vesicle divides, by transverse constrictions,\ninto three, then four, and eventually five vesicles. The most\nimportant of these is the first, the _cerebrum_, the organ of\nthe highest psychic functions. The more the intelligence develops\nin the higher vertebrates, the larger, more voluminous, and more\nspecialised does the cerebrum become. In particular, the grey\nmantle or cortex of the cerebrum, its most important part, only\nattains in the higher mammals the degree of quantitative and\nqualitative development that qualifies it to be the \"organ of mind\"\nin the narrower sense. Through the famous discoveries of Paul\nFlechsig eleven years ago we were enabled to distinguish eight\nfields in the cortex, four of which serve as the internal centres\nof sense-perception, and the four that lie between these are the\nthought-centres (or association-centres) of the higher psychic\nfaculties--the association of impressions, the formation of ideas\nand concepts, induction and deduction. This real organ of mind, the\n_phronema_, is not yet developed in the lower mammals. It is only\ngradually built up in the more advanced, exactly in proportion as\ntheir intelligence increases. It is only in the most intelligent\nforms of the placentals, the higher ungulates (horse, elephant),\nthe carnivores (fox, dog), and especially the primates, that the\nphronema attains the high grade of development that leads us from\nthe anthropoid apes direct to the savage, and from him to civilised\nman.\n\nWe have learned a good deal about the special significance of the\nvarious parts of the brain, as organs of specific functions, by the\nprogress of the modern science of experimental physiology. Careful\nexperiments by Goltz, Munk, Bernard, and many other physiologists,\nhave shown that the normal consciousness, speech, and the internal\nsense-perceptions, are connected with definite areas of the cortex,\nand that these various _parts of the soul_ are destroyed when\nthe organic areas connected with them are injured. But in this\nrespect Nature has unconsciously given us the most instructive\nexperiments. Diseases in these various areas show how their\nfunctions are partially or totally extinguished when the cerebral\ncells that compose them (the _neurona_ or ganglionic cells) are\npartially or entirely destroyed. Here again Virchow, who was the\nfirst to make a careful microscopic study of the finest changes in\nthe diseased cells, and so explain the nature of the disease, did\npioneer work. I still remember very well a spectacle of this kind\n(in the summer of 1855, at W\u00fcrzburg), which made a deep impression\non me. Virchow's sharp eye had detected a small suspicious spot\nin the cerebrum of a lunatic, though there seemed to be nothing\nremarkable about it on superficial examination. He handed it to me\nfor microscopic examination, and I found that a large number of the\nganglionic cells were affected, partly by fatty degeneration and\npartly by calcification. The luminous remarks that my great teacher\nmade on these and similar finds in other cases of mental disorder,\nconfirmed my conviction of the unity of the human organism and\nthe inseparable connection of mind and body, which he himself\nat that time expressly shared. When he abandoned this Monistic\nconception of the psychic life for Dualism and Mysticism twenty\nyears afterwards (especially after his Munich speech in 1877), we\nmust attribute this partly to his psychological metamorphosis,\nand partly to the political motives of which I spoke in the last\nchapter.\n\nWe find another series of strong arguments in favour of our\nMonistic psychology in the individual development of the soul in\nthe child and the young animal. We know that the new-born child\nhas as yet no consciousness, no intelligence, no independent\njudgment and thought. We follow the gradual development of these\nhigher faculties step by step in the first years of life, in\nstrict proportion to the anatomical development of the cortex\nwith which they are bound up. The inquiries into the child-soul\nwhich Wilhelm Preyer began in Jena twenty-five years ago, his\ncareful \"observations of the mental development of man in his early\nyears,\" and the supplementary research of several more recent\nphysiologists, have shown, from the ontogenetic side, that the soul\nis not a special immaterial entity, but the sum-total of a number\nof connected functions of the brain. When the brain dies, the soul\ncomes to an end.\n\nWe have further proof in the stem-history of the soul, which we\ngather from the comparative psychology of the lower and higher\nmammals, and of savage and civilised races. Modern ethnography\nshows us in actual existence the various stages through which the\nmind rose to its present height. The most primitive races, such as\nthe Veddahs of Ceylon, or the Australian natives, are very little\nabove the mental life of the anthropoid apes. From the higher\nsavages we pass by a complete gradation of stages to the most\ncivilised races. But what a gulf there is, even here, between\nthe genius of a Goethe, a Darwin, or a Lamarck, and an ordinary\nphilisthine or third-rate official. All these facts point to one\nconclusion: the human soul has only reached its present height by\na long period of gradual evolution; it differs in degree, not in\nkind, from the soul of the higher mammals; and thus it cannot in\nany case be immortal.\n\nThat a large number of educated people still cling to the dogma of\npersonal immortality in spite of these luminous proofs, is owing to\nthe great power of conservative tradition and the evil methods of\ninstruction that stamp these untenable dogmas deep on the growing\nmind in early years. It is for that very reason that the Churches\nstrive to keep the schools under their power at any cost; they can\ncontrol and exploit the adults at will, if independent thought and\njudgment have been stifled in the earlier years.\n\nThis brings us to the interesting question: What is the position of\nthe \"ecclesiastical evolution\" of the Jesuits (the \"latest course\nof Darwinism\"), as regards this great question of the soul? Man is,\naccording to Wasmann, the image of God and a unique, immaterial\nbeing, differing from all other animals in the possession of an\nimmortal soul, and therefore having a totally different origin from\nthem. Man's immortal soul is, according to this Jesuit sophistry,\n\"spiritual and sensitive,\" while the animal soul is sensitive only.\nGod has implanted his own spirit in man, and associated it with\nan animal soul for the period of life. It is true that Wasmann\nbelieves even man's body to have been created directly by God;\nbut, in view of the overwhelming proofs of our animal descent, he\nleaves open the possibility of a development from a series of other\nanimals, in which case the Divine spirit would be breathed into him\nin the end. The Christian Fathers, who were much occupied with the\nintroduction of the soul into the human embryo, tell us that the\nimmortal soul enters the soulless embryo on the fortieth day after\nconception in the case of the boy, and on the eightieth day in the\ncase of the girl. If Wasmann supposes that there was a similar\nintroduction of the soul in the development of the race, he must\npostulate a moment in the history of the anthropoid apes when God\nsent his spirit into the hitherto unspiritual soul of the ape.\n\nWhen we look at the matter impartially in the light of pure reason,\nthe belief in immortality is wholly inconsistent with the facts of\nevolution and of physiology. The ontogenetic dogma of the older\nChurch, that the soul is introduced into the soulless body at a\nparticular moment of its embryonic development, is just as absurd\nas the phylogenetic dogma of the most modern Jesuits, that the\nDivine spirit was breathed into the frame of an anthropoid ape at\na certain period (in the Tertiary period), and so converted it\ninto an immortal soul. We may examine and test this belief as we\nwill, we can find in it nothing but a piece of mystic superstition.\nIt is maintained solely by the great power of tradition and the\nsupport of Conservative governments, the leaders of which have no\npersonal belief in these \"revelations,\" but cling to the practical\nconviction that throne and altar must support each other. They\nunfortunately overlook the circumstance that the throne is apt\nto become merely the footstool to the altar, and that the Church\nexploits the State for its own, not the State's, good.\n\nWe learn further, from the history of this dogma, that the\nbelief in immortality did not find its way into science until a\ncomparatively late date. It is not found in the great Monistic\nnatural philosophers who, six centuries before the time of Christ,\nevinced a profound insight into the real nature of the world. It\nis not found in Democritus and Empedocles, in Seneca and Lucretius\nCarus. It is not found in the older Oriental religions, Buddhism,\nthe ancient religion of the Chinese, or Confucianism; in fact,\nthere is no question of individual persistence after death in\nthe Pentateuch or the earlier books of the Old Testament (which\nwere written before the Babylonian Exile). It was Plato and his\npupil, Aristotle, that found a place for it in their dualistic\nmetaphysics; and its agreement with the Christian and Mohammedan\nteaching secured for it a very widespread acceptance.\n\nAnother psychological dogma, the belief in man's free-will, is\nequally inconsistent with the truth of evolution. Modern physiology\nshows clearly that the will is never really free in man or in the\nanimal, but determined by the organisation of the brain; this in\nturn is determined in its individual character by the laws of\nheredity and the influence of the environment. It is only because\nthe _apparent_ freedom of the will has such a great practical\nsignificance in the province of religion, morality, sociology, and\nlaw, that it still forms the subject of the most contradictory\nclaims. Theoretically, determinism, or the doctrine of the\nnecessary character of our volitions, was established long ago.\n\nWith the belief in the absolute freedom of the will and the\npersonal immortality of the soul is associated, in the minds of\nmany highly educated people, a third article of faith, the belief\nin a personal God. It is well known that this belief, often wrongly\nrepresented as an indispensable foundation of religion, assumes\nthe most widely varied shapes. As a rule, however, it is an open\nor covert anthropomorphism. God is conceived as the \"Supreme\nBeing,\" but turns out, on closer examination, to be an idealised\nman. According to the Mosaic narrative, \"God made man to his own\nimage and likeness,\" but it is usually the reverse; \"Man made\nGod according to his own image and likeness.\" This idealised man\nbecomes creator and architect and produces the world, forming the\nvarious species of plants and animals like a modeller, governing\nthe world like a wise and all-powerful monarch, and, at the \"Last\nJudgment,\" rewarding the good and punishing the wicked like a\nrigorous judge. The childish conceptions of this extramundane God,\nwho is set over against the world as an independent being, the\npersonal creator, maintainer, and ruler of all things, are quite\nincompatible with the advanced science of the nineteenth century,\nespecially with its two greatest triumphs, the law of substance and\nthe law of Monistic evolution.\n\nCritical philosophy, moreover, long ago pronounced its doom. In\nthe first place, the most famous critical thinker, Immanuel Kant,\nproved in his _Critique of Pure Reason_ that absolute science\naffords no support to the three central dogmas of metaphysics,\nthe personal God, the immortality of the soul, and the freedom\nof the will. It is true that he afterwards (in the course of his\ndualistic and dogmatic metamorphosis) taught that we must _believe_\nthese three great mystic forces, and that they are indispensable\npostulates of practical reason; and that the latter must take\nprecedence over pure reason. Modern German philosophy, which\nclamours for a \"return to Kant,\" sees his chief distinction in this\nimpossible reconciliation of polar contradictions. The Churches,\nand the ruling powers in alliance with them, accord a welcome to\nthis diametrical contradiction, recognised by all candid readers of\nthe K\u00f6nigsberg philosopher, between the two reasons. They use the\nconfusion that results for the purpose of putting the light of the\ncreeds in the darkness of doubting reason, and imagine that they\nsave religion in this way.\n\nWhilst we are engaged with the important subject of religion, we\nmust refute the charge, often made, and renewed of recent years,\nthat our Monistic philosophy and the theory of evolution that\nforms its chief foundation destroy religion. It is only opposed\nto those lower forms of religion that are based on superstition\nand ignorance, and would hold man's reason in bondage by empty\nformalism and belief in the miraculous, in order to control it\nfor political purposes. This is chiefly the case with Romanism\nor Ultramontanism, that pitiful caricature of pure Christianity\nthat still plays so important a part in the world. Luther would\nturn in his grave if he could see the predominance of the Roman\nCentre party in the German Empire to-day. We find the papacy, the\ndeadly enemy of Protestant Germany, controlling its destiny, and\nthe Reichstag submitting willingly to be led by the Jesuits. Not\na voice do we hear raised in it against the three most dangerous\nand mischievous institutions of Romanism--the obligatory celibacy\nof the clergy, the confessional, and indulgences. Though these\nlater institutions of the Roman Church have nothing to do with the\noriginal teaching of the Church and pure Christianity; though their\nimmoral consequences, so prejudicial to the life of the family and\nthe State, are known to all, they exist just as they did before the\nReformation. Unfortunately, many German princes foster the ambition\nof the Roman clergy, making their \"Canossa-journey\" to Rome, and\nbending the knee to the great charlatan at the Vatican.\n\nIt is also very regrettable that the increasing tendency to\nexternal show and festive parade at what is called \"the new court\"\ndoes grave injury to real and inner religion. We have a striking\ninstance of this external religion in the new cathedral at Berlin,\nwhich many would have us regard as \"Catholic,\" not Protestant\nand Evangelical. I often met in India priests and pilgrims who\nbelieved they were pleasing their God by turning prayer-wheels, or\nsetting up prayer-mills that were set in motion by the wind. One\nmight utilise the modern invention of automatic machines for the\nsame purposes, and set up praying automata in the new cathedral,\nor indulgence-machines that would give relief from lighter sins\nfor one mark [shilling], and from graver sins for twenty marks. It\nwould prove a great source of revenue to the Church, especially if\nsimilar machines were set up in the other churches that have lately\nbeen erected in Berlin at a cost of millions of marks. It would\nhave been better to have spent the money on schools.\n\nThese observations on the more repellent characters of modern\northodoxy and piety may be taken as some reply to the sharp attacks\nto which I have been exposed for forty years, and which have lately\nbeen renewed with great violence. The spokesmen of Catholic and\nEvangelical beliefs, especially the Romanist _Germania_ and the\nLutheran _Reichsbote_, have vied with each other in deploring my\nlectures as \"a desecration of this venerable hall,\" and in damning\nmy theory of evolution--without, of course, making any attempt\nto repute its scientific truth. They have, in their Christian\ncharity, thought fit to put sandwich-men at the doors of this room,\nto distribute scurrilous attacks on my person and my teaching to\nthose who enter. They have made a generous use of the fanatical\ncalumnies that the court chaplain, St\u00f6cker, the theologian, Loofs,\nthe philologist, Dennert, and other opponents of my _Riddle of the\nUniverse_, have disseminated, and to which I make a brief reply at\nthe end of that work. I pass by the many untruths of these zealous\nprotagonists of theology. We men of science have a different\nconception of truth from that which prevails in ecclesiastical\ncircles.[10]\n\nAs regards the relation of science to Christianity, I will only\npoint out that it is quite irreconcilable with the mystic and\nsupernatural Christian beliefs, but that it fully recognises the\nhigh ethical value of Christian morality. It is true that the\nhighest commands of the Christian religion, especially those of\nsympathy and brotherly love, are not discoveries of its own; the\ngolden rule was taught and practised centuries before the time of\nChrist. However, Christianity has the distinction of preaching\nand developing it with a fresh force. In its time it has had a\nbeneficial influence on the development of civilisation, though\nin the Middle Ages the Roman Church became, with its Inquisition,\nits witch-drowning, its burning of heretics, and its religious\nwars, the bloodiest caricature of the gentle religion of love.\nOrthodox _historical_ Christianity is not directly destroyed by\nmodern science, but by its own learned and zealous theologians.\nThe enlightened Protestantism that was so effectively advocated\nby Schleiermacher in Berlin eighty years ago, the later works of\nFeuerbach, the inquiries into the life of Jesus of David Strauss\nand Ernest Renan, the lectures recently delivered here by Delitzsch\nand Harnack, have left very little of what strict orthodoxy regards\nas the indispensable foundations of historical Christianity.\nKalthoff, of Bremen, goes so far as to declare that all Christian\ntraditions are myths, and that the development of Christianity is a\nnecessary outcome of the civilisation of the time.\n\nIn view of this broadening tendency in theology and philosophy\nat the beginning of the twentieth century, it is an unfortunate\nanachronism that the Ministers of Public Instruction of Prussia and\nBavaria sail in the wake of the Catholic Church, and seek to instil\nthe spirit of the Jesuits in both lower and higher education. It\nis only a few weeks since the Prussian Minister of Worship made a\ndangerous attempt to suppress academic freedom, the palladium of\nmental life in Germany. This increasing reaction recalls the sad\ndays of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when thousands\nof the finest citizens of Germany migrated to North America, in\norder to develop their mental powers in a free atmosphere. This\nselective process formed a blessing to the United States, but it\nwas certainly very injurious to Germany. Large numbers of weak\nand servile characters and sycophants were thus favoured. The\nfossilised ideas of many of our leading jurists seem to take us\nback sometimes to the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods, while the\npal\u00e6ozoic rhetoric of our theologians and synods even goes back to\nthe Permian and Carboniferous epochs.\n\nHowever, we must not take too seriously the anxiety that this\nincreasing political and clerical reaction causes us. We must\nremember the vast resources of civilisation that are seen to-day in\nour enormous international intercourse, and must have confidence\nin the helpful exchange of ideas between east and west that is\nbeing effected daily by our means of transit. Even in Germany\nthe darkness that now prevails will at length give place to the\ndazzling light of the sun. Nothing, in my opinion, will contribute\nmore to that end than the unconditional victory of the idea of\nevolution.\n\nBeside the law of evolution, and closely connected with it, we have\nthat great triumph of modern science, the law of substance--the\nlaw of the conservation of matter (Lavoisier, 1789), and of the\nconservation of energy (Robert Mayer, 1842). These two laws are\nirreconcilable with the three central dogmas of metaphysics,\nwhich so many educated people still regard as the most precious\ntreasures of their spiritual life--the belief in a personal God,\nthe personal immortality of the soul, and the liberty of the human\nwill. But these great objects of belief, so intimately bound up\nwith numbers of our treasured achievements and institutions, are\nnot on that account driven out of the world. They merely cease\nto pose as truths in the realm of pure science. As imaginative\ncreations, they retain a certain value in the world of poetry.\nHere they will not only, as they have done hitherto, furnish\nthousands of the finest and most lofty motives for every branch of\nart--sculpture, painting, or music--but they will still have a high\nethical and social value in the education of the young and in the\norganisation of society. Just as we derive artistic and ethical\ninspiration from the legends of classical antiquity (such as the\nHercules myth, the _Odyssey_ and the _Iliad_) and the story of\nWilliam Tell, so we will continue to do in regard to the stories of\nthe Christian mythology. But we must do the same with the poetical\nconceptions of other religions, which have given the most varied\nforms to the transcendental ideas of God, freedom, and immortality.\n\nThus the noble warmth of art will remain, together with--not in\nopposition to, but in harmony with--the splendid light of science,\none of the most precious possessions of the human mind. As Goethe\nsaid: \"He who has science and art has religion; he who has not\nthese two had better have religion.\" Our Monistic system, the\n\"connecting link between religion and science,\" brings God and the\nworld into unity in the sense that Goethe willed, the sense that\nSpinoza clearly expressed long ago and Giordano Bruno had sealed\nwith his martyrdom. It has been said repeatedly of late that Goethe\nwas an orthodox Christian. A few years ago a young orator quoted\nhim in support of the wonderful dogmas of the Christian religion.\nWe may point out that Goethe himself expressly said he was \"a\ndecided non-Christian.\" The \"great heathen of Weimar\" has given\nthe clearest expression to his Pantheistic views in his noblest\npoems, _Faust_, _Prometheus_, and _God and the World_. How could\nso vigorous a thinker, in whose mind the evolution of organic life\nran through millions of years, have shared the narrow belief of a\nJewish prophet and enthusiast who sought to give up his life for\nhumanity 1,900 years ago?\n\nOur Monistic god, the all-embracing essence of the world, the\nNature-god of Spinoza and Goethe, is identical with the eternal,\nall-inspiring energy, and is one, in eternal and infinite\nsubstance, with space-filling matter. It \"lives and moves in\nall things,\" as the Gospel says. And as we see that the law of\nsubstance is universal, that the conservation of matter and of\nenergy is inseparably connected, and that the ceaseless development\nof this substance follows the same \"eternal iron laws,\" we find God\nin natural law itself. The will of God is at work in every falling\ndrop of rain and every growing crystal, in the scent of the rose\nand the spirit of man.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nEVOLUTIONARY TABLES\n\n\n\n\n1.--GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS\n\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n     Ages in the   |                  |                  |Approximate length\n   Organic History |   Periods of     |  Vertebrate      |of Paleontological\n    of the Earth.  |    Geology       |   Fossils.       |     Periods.\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n                   | {1. Laurentian   |                  |\n  I. Archeozoic age| {                |                  | 52 million years\n      (primordial) | {                | No fossil        |Sedimentary strata\n                   | {2. Huronian     |   remains of     | 63,000 ft. thick\n                   |                  |   vertebrates    |\n        Age of     |  3. Cambrian     |                  |\n     invertebrates |                  |                  |\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   |  4. Silurian     | Fishes           |\n                   |                  |                  |\n  II. Paleozoic age|  5. Devonian     | Dipneusts        | 34 million years\n        (primary)  |                  |                  |Sedimentary strata\n     Age of fishes |  6. Carboniferous| Amphibia         | 41,200 ft. thick\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   |  7. Permian      | Reptiles         |\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   |  8. Triassic     | Monotremes       |\n  III. Mesozoic age|                  |                  | 11 million years\n       (secondary) |  9. Jurassic     | Marsupials       |Sedimentary strata\n    Age of reptiles|                  |                  | 12,200 ft. thick\n                   | 10. Cretaceous   | {_Mallotheria_   |\n                   |                  | {Pro-placentals  |\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   | 11. Eocene       | {_Prosimi\u00e6_      |\n                   |                  | { Lemurs         |\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   | 12. Oligocene    | {_Cynopitheca_   |\n  IV. Cenozoic age |                  | { Baboons        |\n       (tertiary)  |                  |                  | 3 million years\n    Age of mammals | 13. Miocene      | {_Anthropoides_  | 3,600 ft. thick\n                   |                  | { Man-like apes  |\n                   |                  |                  |\n                   | 14. Pliocene     | {_Pithecanthropi_|\n                   |                  | { Ape-men        |\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n                   |                  |                  |\n  V. Anthropozoic  | 15. Glacial      | Pre-historic man |\n   age (quaternary)|                  |                  | 300,000 years\n      Age of man   | 16. Post-glacial | Savage and       |Sedimentary strata\n                   |                  | civilised man    | little thickness\n  -----------------+------------------+------------------+------------------\n\n\n\n\n2A.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_First Half_\n\nEARLIER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITHOUT FOSSIL REMAINS, BEFORE THE\nSILURIAN PERIOD\n\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n  Chief Stages.|      Ancestral      | Living Relatives  |Pale-|Onto-|Mor-\n               |     Stem-Groups.    | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol-\n               |                     |                   |logy.|     |ogy.\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n   Stages 1-5: | { 1. MONERA         |  1. CHROMACEA     |  O  | I?  | I\n     PROTIST-  | {  (Plasmodoma)     |  (_Chroococcus_)  |     |     |\n     ANCESTORS | { without nuclei    |  _Phycochromacea_ |     |     |\n   Unicellular | { 2. ALGARIA        |  2. PAULOTOMEA    |  O  | I?  | I\n    organisms  | { Unicellular alg\u00e6  |    _Palmellacea_  |     |     |\n               | {    with nuclei    |    _Eremosphaera_ |     |     |\n               |                     |                   |     |     |\n               | { 3. LOBOSA         |  3. AM\u0152BINA       |  O  | II  | II\n               | {    Unicellular    |     _Am\u0153ba_       |     |     |\n               | {    (Am\u0153boid)      |     _Lecocyta_    |     |     |\n        1-2:   | {    Rhizopods      |                   |     |     |\n  Plasmodomous | { 4. INFUSORIA      |  4. FLAGELLATA    |  O  |  ?  | II\n   Protophyta  | {  (Unicellular)    |   _Euflagellata_  |     |     |\n        3-5:   | {                   |    _Zoomonades_   |     |     |\n  Plasmophagous| { 5. BLAST\u00c6ADES     |  5. CATALLACTA    |  O  | III | III\n     Protozoa  | {    Multicellular  |    _Magosphaera_  |     |     |\n               | {    cell-colonies  |     _Volvocina_   |     |     |\n               | {                   |     _Blastula?_   |     |     |\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n               | { 6. GASTR\u00c6ADES     |  6. GASTRULA      |  O  | III | III\n  Stages 6-11: | {     with two      | _Hydra, Olynthus_,|     |     |\n  INVERTEBRATE | {  germinal layers  |  _Orthonectida_   |     |     |\n    METAZOA-   | { 7. PLATODES I.    |  7. CRYPTOC\u0152LA    |  O  |  ?  |  I\n    ANCESTORS  | {    _Platodaria_   |     (_Convoluta_) |     |     |\n       6-8:    | { (without nephridia)|     (_Proporus_) |     |     |\n  C\u0153lenteria,  | { 8. PLATODES II.   |  8. RHABDOC\u0152LA    |  O  |  ?  |  I\n  without anus | {    _Platodinia_   |       (_Vortex_)  |     |     |\n   anus or     | {  (with nephridia) |      (_Monotus_)  |     |     |\n   body-cavity |                     |                   |     |     |\n               |                     |                   |     |     |\n               | { 9. PROVERMALIA    |  9. GASTROTRICHA  |  O  |  ?  |  I\n               | {     _Rotatoria_   |      _Trochozoa_  |     |     |\n               | {  Primitive worms  |     _Trochophora_ |     |     |\n      9-11:    | {10. FRONTONIA      | 10. ENTEROPNEUSTA |  O  |  ?  |  I\n    Vermalia,  | {(_Rhynchelminthes_)|   _Balanoglossus_ |     |     |\n  with anus and| {   Snouted worms   |   _Cephalodiscus_ |     |     |\n   body-cavity | {11. PROCHORDONIA   | 11. COPELATA      |  O  | II  | II\n               |   Worms with chorda |   _Appendicaria_  |     |     |\n   ------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n               | {12. ACRANIA I.     | 12. LARV\u00c6 OF      |  O  | III | II\n               | {  (Prospondylia)   |       AMPHIOXUS   |     |     |\n  Stages 12-15:| {13. ACRANIA II.    | 13. LEPTOCARDIA   |  O  |  I  | III\n  MONORRHINA-  | {  Later skull-less |      Amphioxus    |     |     |\n   ANCESTORS   | {  animals          |      (Lancelet)   |     |     |\n  Earliest     | {14. CYCLOSTOMA I.  | 14. LARV\u00c6 OF      |  O  | III | II\n  vertebrates, | {    (Archicrania)  |       PETROMYZON  |     |     |\n   without jaws| {15. CYCLOSTOMA II. | 15. MARSIPOBRAN-  |  O  |  I  | III\n   or pairs of | {    Later round-   |        CHIA       |     |     |\n   limbs, with | {  mouthed animals  |       Myxinoides  |     |     |\n   single      | {                   |     Petromyzontes |     |     |\n   nostril     |                     |                   |     |     |\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n\n\n\n\n2B.--MAN'S GENEALOGICAL TREE--_Second Half_\n\nLATER ANCESTRAL SERIES, WITH FOSSIL REMAINS, BEGINNING IN THE\nSILURIAN\n\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n  Geological   |    Stem-Groups of   | Living Relatives  |Pale-|Onto-|Mor-\n    Periods.   |      Ancestors.     | of our Ancestors. |onto-|geny.|phol-\n               |                     |                   |logy.|     |logy.\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n               |{16. SELACHII        |16. NOTIDANIDES    |  I  | II  | III\n  Silurian     |{    Primitive fishes|   Chlamydoselachus|     |     |\n               |{    _Proselachii_   |     _Heptanchus_  |     |     |\n               |{17. GANOIDES        |17. ACCIPENSERIDES | II  |  I  | II\n  Silurian     |{    Plated fishes   |      Sturgeon,    |     |     |\n               |{  _Proganoides_     |      Polypterus   |     |     |\n               |{18. DIPNEUSTA       |18. NEODIPNEUSTA   |  I  | II  | II\n  Devonian     |{   _Paladipneusta_  |      Ceratodus,   |     |     |\n               |{                    |      Protopterus  |     |     |\n               |{19. AMPHIBIA        |19. PHANEROBRANCHIA| III | III | III\n  Carboniferous|{   _Stegocephala_   |  and Salamandrina |     |     |\n               |{                    |  (Proteus, Triton)|     |     |\n               |{20. REPTILIA        |20. RHYNCOCEPHALIA | III | II  | II\n  Permian      |{   _Proreptilia_    |  Primitive lizards|     |     |\n               |{                    |     Hatteria      |     |     |\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n               |{21. MONOTREMA       |21. ORNITHODELPHIA |  I  | III | III\n  Triassic     |{    _Promammalia_   |      Echnida      |     |     |\n               |{                    |    Ornithorhyncus |     |     |\n               |{22. MARSUPIALIA     |22. DIDELPHIA      |  I  | II  | II\n  Jurassic     |{    _Prodidelphia_  |      Didelphys,   |     |     |\n               |{                    |      Perameles    |     |     |\n               |{23. MALLOTHERIA     |23. INSECTIVORA    | III |  I  |  I\n  Cretaceous   |{    _Prochoriata_   |      Erinaceida   |     |     |\n               |{                    |      (Ictopsida+) |     |     |\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n               |{24. LEMURAVIDA      |24. PACHYLEMURES   | III |  I? | II\n  Older Eocene |{   Earlier lemurs   |   (_Hypopsodus_+) |     |     |\n               |{   Dent. 3, 1, 4, 3 |   (_Adapis_+)     |     |     |\n               |{25. LEMUROGONA      |25. AUTOLEMURES    | II  |  I? | II\n  Later Eocene |{   Later lemurs     |      (_Eulemur_)  |     |     |\n               |{   Dent. 2, 1, 4, 3 |      (_Stenops_)  |     |     |\n               |{26. DYSMOPITHECA    |26. PLATYRRHIN\u00c6    |  I  |  I  | II\n  Oligocene    |{   Western apes     |   (_Anthropops_+) |     |     |\n               |{   Dent. 2, 1, 3, 3 |   (_Homunculus_+) |     |     |\n               |{27. CYNOPITHECA     |27. PAPIOMORPHA    |  I  |  I  | III\n  Older Miocene|{   Baboons (tailed) |   (_Cynocephalus_)|     |     |\n               |{28. ANTHROPOIDES    |28. HYLOBATIDA     |  I  |  II | III\n  Later Miocene|{   Anthropoid apes  |       Hylobates   |     |     |\n               |{      (tailless)    |       Satyrus     |     |     |\n               |{29. PITHECANTHROPI  |29. ANTHROPITHECA  | II  | III | III\n  Pliocene     |{   Ape-like men     |      Chimpanzee   |     |     |\n               |{ (alali=speechless) |        Gorilla    |     |     |\n               |{30. HOMINES         |30. WEDDAHS        |  I  | III | III\n  Pleistocene  |{  (loquaces=with    |      Australian   |     |     |\n               |{        speech)     |      natives      |     |     |\n  -------------+---------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+-----\n\n\n\n\n3.--CLASSIFICATION OF THE PRIMATES\n\n  [[TRANSCRIBER NOTE: This 4-column Table has been split into two parts.\n    The first part has columns 1, 2 and 3. The second part has columns\n    2, 3 and 4 (2 and 3 are repeated from the first part).]]\n\n_N.B_.-- * indicates extinct forms, + living groups, ++ the\nhypothetical stem-form. _Cf._ _History of Creation_, chap. xxvii.;\n_Evolution of Man_, chap. xxiii.\n\n  [[First Part]]\n  ----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------\n      Orders.           |     Sub-Orders.        |     Families.\n  ----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------\n                        |                        |\n        I               |                        |\n     PROSIMIAE          | { 1. LEMURAVIDA        | {1. PACHYLEMURES*\n       Lemurs           | {   (_Palalemures_)    | {(_Hypopsodina_)\n  (Hemipitheci)         | {   Early lemurs       | {\n    The orbits imper-   | {   (generalists)      | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3\n  fectly separated      | { Originally with      | {Primitive dentition\n  from the temporal     | { claws on all or      | {\n  depression by a       | { most fingers: later  | {2.  NECROLEMURES\n  bony arch. Womb       | { transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_)\n  double or two-horned. | { Tarsus primitive.    | {\n  Placenta diffuse, in- | {                      | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3\n  deciduate (as a rule).| {                      | {Reduced dentition\n  Cerebrum relatively   | {                      |\n  small, smooth, or     | {                      | {3.  AUTOLEMURES+\n  little furrowed.      | {                      | {(_Lemurida_)\n                        | { 2. LEMUROGONA        | {\n                        | {   (_Neolemures_)     | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3\n                        | { Modern lemures       | {Specialised dentition\n                        | {   (specialists)      | {\n                        | { All fingers usually  | {4. CHIROLEMURES+\n                        | { have nails (except   | {(_Chiromyida_)\n                        | { the second toe).     | {\n                        | { Tarsus modified.     | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3\n                        |                        | {Rodent dentition\n                        |                        |\n  ----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------\n                        |                        |\n        II              |                        | {5. ARCTOPITHECA+\n      SIMIAE            | { 3. PLATYRRHINAE      | {\n       Apes             | { Flat-nosed apes      | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2\n  (_Pitheci_ or         | { _Hesperopitheca_     | {Nail on hallux only\n  _simiales_)           | { Western apes         | {\n    Orbits completely   | { (American)           | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+\n  separated from the    | { Nostrils lateral,    | {\n  temporal depression   | { with wide partition  | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3\n  by a bony septum.     | { 3 premolars          | {Nails on all fingers\n  Womb simple, pear-    | {                      |\n  shaped. Placenta      | {                      | {7. CYNOPITHECA+\n  discoid, deciduate.   | {                      | {\n  Cerebrum relatively   | {                      | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3\n  large and much        | {                      | {Generally with tail\n  furrowed.             | { 4. CATARRHINAE       | {and cheek-pouches\n                        | { Narrow-nosed         | {Sacrum with 3 or\n                        | { apes                 | {4 vertebr\u00e6\n                        | { _Eopitheca_          | {\n                        | { Eastern apes         | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+\n                        | { (Arctogoea)          | {\n                        | { Europe, Asia, and    | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3\n                        | { Africa.              | {No tail or cheek-pouches\n                        | { Nostrils forward,    | {Sacrum with 5\n                        | { with narrow septum   | {vertebr\u00e6\n                        | { 2 premolars          |\n                        | { Nails on all         |\n                        | { fingers              |\n                        |                        |\n  ----------------------+------------------------+--------------------------\n\n\n  [[Second Part]]\n  -----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------\n      Sub-Orders.        |     Families.             |     Genera.\n  -----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------\n                         |                           |\n                         |                           | {_Archiprimas_++\n  { 1. LEMURAVIDA        | {1. PACHYLEMURES*         | {_Lemuravus_*\n  {   (_Palalemures_)    | {(_Hypopsodina_)          | {  Early Eocene\n  {   Early lemurs       | {                         | {_Pelycodus_*\n  {   (generalists)      | {Dent. 44=3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3 | {  Early Eocene\n  { Originally with      | {Primitive dentition      | {_Hypopsodus_*\n  { claws on all or      | {                         | {  Late Eocene\n  { most fingers: later  | {2.  NECROLEMURES         |\n  { transition to nails. | {(_Anaptomorpha_)         | {_Adapis_*\n  { Tarsus primitive.    | {                         | {_Plesiadapis_*\n  {                      | {Dent. 40=2.1.4.3/2.1.4.3 | {Necrolemur*\n  {                      | {Reduced dentition        |\n  {                      |                           | {_Eulemur_\n  {                      | {3.  AUTOLEMURES+         | {_Hapalemur_\n  {                      | {(_Lemurida_)             | {_Lepilemur_\n  { 2. LEMUROGONA        | {                         | {_Nycticebus_\n  {   (_Neolemures_)     | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Stenops_\n  { Modern lemures       | {Specialised dentition    | {_Galago_\n  {   (specialists)      | {                         |\n  { All fingers usually  | {4. CHIROLEMURES+         | {_Chiromys_\n  { have nails (except   | {(_Chiromyida_)           | { (Claws on all\n  { the second toe).     | {                         | { fingers except\n  { Tarsus modified.     | {Dent. 18=1.0.1.3/1.0.0.3 | { first)\n                         | {Rodent dentition         |\n                         |                           |\n  -----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------\n                         |                           |\n                         | {5. ARCTOPITHECA+         | {_Hapale_\n  { 3. PLATYRRHINAE      | {                         | {_Midas_\n  { Flat-nosed apes      | {Dent. 32=2.1.3.2/2.1.3.2 |\n  { _Hesperopitheca_     | {Nail on hallux only      |\n  { Western apes         | {                         | {_Callithrix_\n  { (American)           | {6. DYSMOPITHECA+         | {_Nyctipithecus_\n  { Nostrils lateral,    | {                         | {_Cebus_\n  { with wide partition  | {Dent. 36=2.1.3.3/2.1.3.3 | {_Mycetes_\n  { 3 premolars          | {Nails on all fingers     | {_Ateles_\n  {                      |                           |\n  {                      | {7. CYNOPITHECA+          | {_Cynocephalus_\n  {                      | {                         | {_Cercopithecus_\n  {                      | {Dent 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3  | {_Inuus_\n  {                      | {Generally with tail      | {_Semnopithecus_\n  { 4. CATARRHINAE       | {and cheek-pouches        | {_Colobus_\n  { Narrow-nosed         | {Sacrum with 3 or 4       | {_Nasalis_\n  { apes                 | {vertebr\u00e6                 |\n  { _Eopitheca_          | {                         | {_Hylobates_\n  { Eastern apes         | {8. ANTHROPOMORPHA+       | {_Satyrus_\n  { (Arctogoea)          | {                         | {_Pliopithecus_*\n  { Europe, Asia, and    | {Dent. 32=2.1.2.3/2.1.2.3 | {_Gorilla_\n  { Africa.              | {No tail or cheek-pouches | {_Anthropithecus_\n  { Nostrils forward,    | {Sacrum with 5            | {_Dryopithecus_*\n  { with narrow septum   | {vertebr\u00e6                 | {_Pithe-\n  { 2 premolars          |                           | {   canthropus_*\n  { Nails on all         |                           | {_Homo_\n  { fingers              |                           |\n                         |                           |\n  -----------------------+---------------------------+-----------------\n\n\n\n\n4.--GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PRIMATES\n\n[Illustration: Anthropomorpha]\n\n\nEXPLANATION OF GENEALOGICAL TABLE 1\n\nCHRONOMETRIC REDUCTION OF BIOGENETIC PERIODS\n\nThe enormous length of the biogenetic periods (_i.e._, the periods\nduring which organic life has been evolving on our planet) is still\nvery differently estimated by geologists and paleontologists,\nastronomers and physicists, because the empirical data of the\ncalculation are very incomplete and admit great differences of\nestimate. However, most modern experts aver that their length\nruns to 100 and 200 million years (some say double this, and even\nmore). If we take the lesser figure of 100 millions, we find this\ndistributed over the five chief periods of organic geology very\nmuch as is shown on Table 1. In order to get a clearer idea of the\nvast duration of these evolutionary periods, and to appreciate\nthe relative shortness of the \"historical period,\" Dr. H. Schmidt\n(Jena) has reduced the 100,000,000 years to a day. In this scheme\nthe twenty-four hours of \"creation-day\" are distributed as follows\nover the five evolutionary periods:\n\n    I. Archeozoic period (52 million years)        = 12h. 30m.\n   II. Paleozoic period (34 million years)         = 8h.   7m.\n  III. Mesozoic period (11 million years)          = 2h.  38m.\n   IV. Cenozoic period (3 million years)           =      43m.\n    V. Anthropozoic period (0\u00b71-0\u00b72 million years) =       2m.\n\nIf we put the length of the \"historic period\" at 6,000 years, it\nonly makes _five seconds_ of \"creation-day\"; the Christian era\nwould amount to _two_ seconds.\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT\n\nEVOLUTION AND JESUITISM\n\n\nThe relation of the theory of evolution to the teaching of\nthe Jesuits is in many respects so important and so liable to\nmisunderstanding that I have felt it very desirable to make it\nclear in the present work. I have, I think, clearly showed that\nthe two doctrines are diametrically and irreconcilably opposed,\nand that the attempt of the modern Jesuits to reconcile the two\nantagonists is mere sophistry. I wrote with special reference\nto the works of the learned Jesuit, Father Erich Wasmann, not\nonly because that writer deals with the subject more ably and\ncomprehensively than most of his colleagues, but because he is more\ncompetent to make a scientific defence of his views on account of\nhis long studies of the ants and his general knowledge of biology.\nHe has made a vigorous reply to my strictures in an \"open letter\"\nto me, which appeared on 2nd May, 1905, in the Berlin (or Roman)\n_Germania_, and in the _K\u00f6lnische Volkszeitung_.\n\nThe sophistical objections that Wasmann raises to my lectures, and\nhis misleading statement of the most important problems, oblige me\nto make a brief reply in this \"Postscript.\" It will be impossible,\nof course, to meet all his points here, and convince him of their\nfutility. Not even the clearest and most rigorous logic makes a man\na match for a Jesuit; he adroitly employs the facts themselves for\nthe purpose of concealing the truth by his perverse misstatements.\nIt is vain to hope to convince my opponent by rational argument,\nwhen he believes that religious faith is \"higher than all reason.\"\nA good idea can be formed of his position from the conclusion of\nthe eleventh chapter of his work, _Modern Biology and the Theory\nof Evolution_ (p. 307). \"There can never be a real contradiction\nbetween natural knowledge and supernatural revelation, because\nboth have their origin in the same Divine spirit.\" This is a\nfine comment on the incessant struggle that \"natural science\" is\ncompelled to maintain against \"supernatural revelation,\" and that\nfills the whole philosophical and theological literature of the\nlast half century.\n\nWasmann's orthodox position is shown most clearly by the following\nstatement: \"The theory of evolution, to which I subscribe as a\nscientist and a philosopher, rests on the foundations of the\nChristian doctrine which I hold to be the only true one: 'In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth.'\" Unfortunately,\nhe does not tell us how he conceives this \"creation out of\nnothing,\" and what he means by \"God\" and \"heavens.\" I would\nrecommend him to consult Troelslund's excellent work, _The Idea of\nHeaven and of the World_.\n\nAlmost at the same time that I was delivering my lectures at\nBerlin, Wasmann was giving a series of thoroughly Jesuitical\nlectures on the subject at Lucerne. The Catholic Lucerne journal,\n_Vaterland_, describes these lectures as \"a work of emancipation\"\nand \"a critical moment in the intellectual struggle.\" It quotes\nthe following sentence: \"At the highest stage of the theistic\nphilosophy of evolution is God, the omnipotent creator of heaven\nand earth; next to him, created by him, is the immortal soul of\nman. We reach this conclusion, not only by faith, but by inductive\nand strictly scientific methods. The system that is reared on the\ntheistic doctrine of evolution is the sole rational and truly\nscientific system; the atheistic position is irrational and\nunscientific.\"\n\nIn order to see the untruth of this and the succeeding statements\nof the modern Jesuits, we have to remember that the Churches--both\nProtestant and Catholic--have vigorously combated the theory of\nevolution with all their power for thirty years, ever since the\nfirst appearance of Darwinism. The shrewd clergy saw more clearly\nthan many of our na\u00efve philosophers that Darwin's theory of descent\nis the inevitable key-stone of the whole theory of evolution,\nand that \"the descent of man from other mammals\" is a rigorous\ndeduction from it. As Karl Escherich well says: \"Hitherto we read\nin the faces of our clerical opponents only hatred, bitterness,\ncontempt, mockery, or pity in regard to the new invader of their\ndogmatic structure, the idea of evolution. Now (since Wasmann's\napostasy) the assurances of the Catholic journals, that the Church\nhas admitted the theory of evolution for decades, make us smile.\nEvolution has now pressed on to its final victory, and these people\nwould have us believe that they were never unfriendly to it, never\nshrieked and stormed against it. How, they say, could anyone have\nbeen so foolish, when the theory of evolution puts the wisdom\nand power of the creator in a nobler light than ever.\" We find\na similar diplomatic retreat in the popular work of the Jesuit,\nFather Martin Gander, _The Theory of Descent_ (1904): \"Thus the\nmodern forms of matter were not immediately created by God; they\nare effects of the formative forces, which were put by the creator\nin the primitive matter, and gradually came into view in the course\nof the earth's history, when the external conditions were given in\nthe proper combination.\" That is a remarkable change of front on\nthe part of the clergy.\n\nWe see the astonishing system of the Jesuits, and of the papacy of\nwhich they are the bodyguard, not only in this impossible jumble\nof evolution and theology, but also in other passages of Wasmann,\nGander, Gutberlet, and their colleagues. The serious dangers that\nthreaten our schools, and the whole of our higher culture, from\nthis Jesuitical sham-science, have been well pointed out lately\nby Count von Hoensbroech in the preface to his famous work, _The\nPapacy in its Social and Intellectual Activity_ (1901). \"The\npapacy,\" he says, \"in its claim to a Divine authority, transmitted\nto it by Christ, endowed with infallibility in all questions\nof faith and morals, is the greatest, the most fatal, the most\nsuccessful error in the whole of history. This great error is\ngirt about by the thousands of lies of its supporters; this error\nand these lies work for a system of power and domination, for\nultramontanism. The truth can but struggle against it.... Nowhere\ndo we find so much and such systematic lying as in Catholic\nscience, and in the history of the Church and the papacy; nowhere\nare the lies and misrepresentations more pernicious than here; they\nhave become part and parcel of the Catholic religion. The facts\nof history tell plainly enough that the papacy is anything but a\nDivine institution; that it has brought more curses and ruin, more\nbloody turmoil and profanation, into humanity's holiest of holies,\nreligion, than any other power in the world.\"\n\nThis severe judgment on the papacy and Jesuitism is the more\nvaluable as Count von Hoensbroech was himself in the service of the\nJesuit Congregation for forty years, and learned thoroughly all\nits tricks and intrigues. In making them public, and basing his\ncharges on numerous official documents, he has done great service\nto the cause of truth and civilisation. I was merely repeating\nhis well-founded verdict when, at the close of my first lecture,\nI described the papacy as the greatest swindle the world has ever\nsubmitted to.\n\nA curious irony of Fate gave me an opportunity, the same evening,\nto experience in my own person the correctness of this verdict. A\nBerlin reporter telegraphed to London that I had fully accepted\nthe new theory of Father Wasmann, and recognised the error of\nDarwinism; that the theory of evolution is not applicable to man on\naccount of his mental superiority. This welcome intelligence passed\nfrom London to America and many other countries. The result was a\nflood of letters from zealous adherents of the theory of evolution,\ninterrogating me as to my unintelligible change of front. I thought\nat first that the telegram was due to the misunderstanding or the\nerror of a reporter, but I was afterwards informed from Berlin that\nthe false message was probably due to a deliberate corruption by\nsome religious person who thought to render a service to his faith\nby this untruth. He had substituted \"supported\" for \"refuted,\" and\n\"error\" for \"truth.\"\n\nThe struggle for the triumph of truth, in which I have had the most\ncurious experiences during the last forty years, has brought me a\nnumber of new impressions through my Berlin lectures. The flood\nof calumnies of all kinds that the religious press (especially\nthe Lutheran _Reichsbote_ and the Catholic _Germania_) poured\nover me exceeded any that had gone before. Dr. Schmidt gave a\nselection from them in the _Freie Wort_ (No. 4, p. 144). I have\nalready pointed out, in the Appendix to the popular edition of the\n_Riddle of the Universe_ [German edition], what unworthy means are\nemployed by my clerical and metaphysical opponents for the purpose\nof bringing my popular scientific works into disrepute. I can only\nrepeat here that the calumniation of my person does not move me,\nand does not injure the cause of truth which I serve. It is just\nthis unusually loud alarm of my clerical enemies that tells me my\nsacrifices have not been in vain, and that I have put the modest\nkey-stone to the work of my life--\"The advancement of knowledge by\nthe spread of the idea of evolution.\"\n\n\n    THE END\n\n\n    _Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth._\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The word \"evolution\" is still used in so many different ways\nin various sciences that it is important to fix it in the general\nsignificance which we here give it. By \"evolution,\" in the widest\nsense, I understand the unceasing \"mutations of substance,\"\nadopting Spinoza's fundamental conception of substance; it unites\ninseparably in itself \"matter and force (or energy),\" or \"nature\nand mind\" (= the world and God). Hence the science of evolution in\nits broader range is \"the history of substance,\" which postulates\nthe general validity of \"the law of substance.\" In the latter are\ncombined \"the law of the constancy of matter\" (Lavoisier, 1789)\nand \"the law of the conservation of energy\" (Robert Mayer, 1842),\nhowever varied may be the changes of _form_ of these elements in\nthe world-process. _Cf._ Chapter XII. of _The Riddle_.\n\n[2] Certain orthodox periodicals have lately endeavoured to deny\nthis famous atheistical confession of the great Laplace, which was\nmerely a candid deduction of his splendid cosmic system. They say\nthat this Monistic natural philosopher acknowledged the Catholic\nfaith on his death-bed; and in proof of this they offer us the\nlater testimony of an Ultramontane priest. We need not point out\nhow uncertain is the love of truth of these heated partisans. When\ntestimony of this kind tends to \"the good of religion\" (_i.e._,\ntheir own good), it is held to be a pious work (_pia fraus_). On\nthe other hand, it is interesting to recall the reply of a Prussian\nMinister of Religion, Von Zedlitz, 120 years ago, to the Breslau\nConsistory, when it urged that \"those who believe most are the best\nsubjects.\" He wrote in reply: \"His majesty [Frederick the Great] is\nnot disposed to rest the security of his State on the stupidity of\nhis subjects.\"\n\n[3] See, for instance, _Moses and Geology, or Harmony of the Bible\nwith Science_, by Samuel Kinns (1882). In this work the pious\nBiblical astronomer executes the most incredible and Jesuitical\nman\u0153uvres in order to bring about an impossible reconciliation\nbetween science and the Biblical narrative.\n\n[4] The eel-like sophistry of the Jesuits, which has been brought\nto such a wonderful pitch in their political system, cannot, as\na rule, be met by argument. An interesting illustration of this\nwas given by Father Wasmann himself in his controversy with the\nphysician, Dr. Julian Marcuse. The \"scientific\" Wasmann had gone so\nfar in his zeal for religion as to support a downright swindle of\na \"miraculous cure\" in honour of the \"Mother of God of Oostacker\"\n(the Belgian Lourdes). Dr. Marcuse succeeded in exposing the\nwhole astounding story of this \"pious fraud\" (_Deutsche Stimmen_,\nBerlin, 1903, iv. Jahrg., No. 20). Instead of giving a scientific\nrefutation, the Jesuit replied with sophistic perversion and\npersonal invective (Scientific [?] Supplement to _Germania_,\nBerlin, 1902, No. 43, and 1903, No. 13). In his final reply, Dr.\nMarcuse said: \"I have accomplished my object--to let thoughtful\npeople see once more the kind of ideas that are found in the\nworld of dead and literal faith, which tries to put the crudest\nsuperstition and reverence for the myth of miraculous cures in the\nplace of science, truth and knowledge\" (_Deutsche Stimmen_, 1903,\nv. Jahrgang, No. 3).\n\n[5] While these pages are in the press the journals announce a\nfresh humiliation of the German empire that will cause great\ngrief. On the 9th of May the nation celebrated the centenary of\nthe death of Friedrich Schiller. With rare unanimity all the\npolitical parties of Germany, and all the German associations\nabroad, came together to do honour to the great poet of German\nidealism. Professor Theobald Ziegler delivered a very fine address\nat Strassburg University. The Emperor, who happened to be in the\ntown, was invited, but did not attend; instead of doing so, he held\na military parade in the vicinity. A few days afterwards he sat at\ntable with the German Catholic cardinals and bishops, amongst them\nbeing the fanatical Bishop Benzler, who declared that a Christian\ncemetery was desecrated by the interment of a Protestant. At these\nfestive dinners German Catholics always give the first toast to the\nPope, the second to the Emperor; they rejoice at present that the\nEmperor and Pope are _allies_. But the whole history of the papacy\n(a pitiful caricature of the ancient Catholic faith) shows clearly\nthat they are natural and irreconcilable enemies. Either emperor\nmust rule _or_ pope.\n\n[6] The manuscript letter in which the gentle Darwin expresses so\nsevere a judgment on Virchow is printed in my Cambridge lecture,\n_The Last Link_. My answer to Virchow's speech is contained in the\nsecond volume of my _Popular Lectures_, and has lately appeared in\nthe _Freie Wort_ (April, 1905).\n\n[7] In his presidential speech at the last meeting of the British\nAssociation, Professor Darwin said: \"It does not seem unreasonable\nto suppose that 500 to 1,000 million years may have elapsed since\nthe birth of the moon.\" [Trans.]\n\n[8] See account of similar experiments in the _Lancet_, 18th\nJanuary, 1902. [Trans.]\n\n[9] Wasmann meets these convincing experiments with mere Jesuitical\nsophistry. Of the same character is his attack on my _Evolution of\nMan_, and on the instructive work of Robert Wiedersheim, _Man's\nStructure as a Witness to his Past_.\n\n[10] I may remind those who think that the hall of the Musical\nAcademy is \"desecrated\" by my lectures, that it was in the very\nsame place that Alexander von Humboldt delivered, seventy-seven\nyears ago (1828), the remarkable lectures that afterwards made up\nhis _Cosmos_. The great traveller, whose clear mind had recognised\nthe unity of Nature, and had, with Goethe, discovered therein\nthe real knowledge of God, endeavoured to convey his thoughts in\npopular form to the educated Berlin public, and to establish the\nuniversality of natural law. It was my aim to establish, as regards\nthe organic world, precisely what Humboldt had proved to exist\nin inorganic nature. I wanted to show how the great advance of\nmodern biology (since Darwin's time) enables us to solve the most\ndifficult of all problems, the historical development of plants and\nanimals in humanity. Humboldt in his day earned the most lively\napproval and gratitude of all free-thinking and truth-seeking men,\nand the displeasure and suspicion of the orthodox and conservative\ncourtiers at Berlin.\n\n\n\n\n      *      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n  In Tables 2A and 2B, 'Ontogeny' column, the character ! was used in\n  the original text. This was probably a printer's error, and has been\n  replaced with I.  So ! !! and !!! are displayed as I II and III.\n\n  Notation for dentition in Table 2B (p. 117), where lower dentition is\n  assumed the same as upper, is unchanged; for example \"3, 1, 4, 3\".\n  In Table 3 (p.118) it is given as a fraction, and represented in the\n  etext as \"upper/lower\"; for example \"44 = 3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3\".\n\n  Table 3 has been split into two parts in the etext.\n\n  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,\n  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example,\n  manlike, man-like; paleozoic, pal\u00e6ozoic; to-day; unspiritual; instil.\n\n  Pg 44, 'Christain sects' replaced by 'Christian sects'.\n\n  Pg 53, '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1899)' replaced by\n         '_Philosophie Zoologique_ (1809)'.\n\n  Pg 53, 'and the champanzee)' replaced by 'and the chimpanzee)'.\n\n  Pg 72, 'familar tendency' replaced by 'familiar tendency'.\n\n  Pg 88, 'acurately described' replaced by 'accurately described'.\n\n  Pg 115, '5. Jurassic' replaced by '9. Jurassic'.\n\n  Pg 123, 'irrational and inscientific' replaced by 'irrational and\n          unscientific'.","title":"Last Words on Evolution: A Popular Retrospect and Summary","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":30064}