按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
once came forward to support him。 It seems at first sight
improbable that those who too zealously urged his claims were
unaware that so much had been written on the subject； but when we
find even Mr。 Wallace himself as profoundly ignorant on this subject
as he still either is； or affects to be； there is no limit
assignable to the ignorance or affected ignorance of the kind of
biologists who would write reviews in leading journals thirty years
ago。 Mr。 Wallace writes：…
〃A few great naturalists； struck by the very slight difference
between many of these species； and the numerous links that exist
between the most different forms of animals and plants； and also
observing that a great many species do vary considerably in their
forms； colours and habits； conceived the idea that they might be all
produced one from the other。 The most eminent of these writers was
a great French naturalist； Lamarck； who published an elaborate work；
the Philosophie Zoologique； in which he endeavoured to prove that
all animals whatever are descended from other species of animals。
He attributed the change of species chiefly to the effect of changes
in the conditions of lifesuch as climate； food； &c。； and
especially to the desires and efforts of the animals themselves to
improve their condition； leading to a modification of form or size
in certain parts； owing to the well…known physiological law that all
organs are strengthened by constant use； while they are weakened or
even completely lost by disuse 。 。 。
〃The only other important work dealing with the question was the
celebrated 'Vestiges of Creation；' published anonymously； but now
acknowledged to have been written by the late Robert Chambers。〃
None are so blind as those who will not see； and it would be waste
of time to argue with the invincible ignorance of one who thinks
Lamarck and Buffon conceived that all species were produced from one
another； more especially as I have already dealt at some length with
the early evolutionists in my work； 〃Evolution； Old and New；〃 first
published ten years ago； and not； so far as I am aware； detected in
serious error or omission。 If； however； Mr。 Wallace still thinks it
safe to presume so far on the ignorance of his readers as to say
that the only two important works on evolution before Mr。 Darwin's
were Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique and the 〃Vestiges of
Creation；〃 how fathomable is the ignorance of the average reviewer
likely to have been thirty years ago； when the 〃Origin of Species〃
was first published？ Mr。 Darwin claimed evolution as his own
theory。 Of course； he would not claim it if he had no right to it。
Then by all means give him the credit of it。 This was the most
natural view to take； and it was generally taken。 It was not；
moreover； surprising that people failed to appreciate all the
niceties of Mr。 Darwin's 〃distinctive feature〃 which； whether
distinctive or no； was assuredly not distinct； and was never frankly
contrasted with the older view； as it would have been by one who
wished it to be understood and judge upon its merits。 It was in
consequence of this omission that people failed to note how fast and
loose Mr。 Darwin played with his distinctive feature； and how
readily he dropped it on occasion。
It may be said that the question of what was thought by the
predecessors of Mr。 Darwin is； after all； personal； and of no
interest to the general public； comparable to that of the main
issuewhether we are to accept evolution or not。 Granted that
Buffon； Erasmus Darwin； and Lamarck bore the burden and heat of the
day before Mr。 Charles Darwin was born； they did not bring people
round to their opinion； whereas Mr。 Darwin and Mr。 Wallace did； and
the public cannot be expected to look beyond this broad and
indisputable fact。
The answer to this is； that the theory which Messrs。 Darwin and
Wallace have persuaded the public to accept is demonstrably false；
and that the opponents of evolution are certain in the end to
triumph over it。 Paley； in his 〃Natural Theology；〃 long since
brought forward far too much evidence of design in animal
organisation to allow of our setting down its marvels to the
accumulations of fortunate accident； undirected by will； effort and
intelligence。 Those who examine the main facts of animal and
vegetable organisation without bias will； no doubt； ere long
conclude that all animals and vegetables are derived ultimately from
unicellular organisms； but they will not less readily perceive that
the evolution of species without the concomitance and direction of
mind and effort is as inconceivable as is the independent creation
of every individual species。 The two facts； evolution and design；
are equally patent to plain people。 There is no escaping from
either。 According to Messrs。 Darwin and Wallace； we may have
evolution； but are on no account to have it as mainly due to
intelligent effort； guided by ever higher and higher range of
sensations； perceptions； and ideas。 We are to set it down to the
shuffling of cards； or the throwing of dice without the play； and
this will never stand。
According to the older men； cards did indeed count for much； but
play counted for more。 They denied the teleology of the timethat
is to say； the teleology that saw all adaptation to surroundings as
part of a plan devised long ages since by a quasi…anthropomorphic
being who schemed everything out much as a man would do； but on an
infinitely vaster scale。 This conception they found repugnant alike
to intelligence and conscience； but； though they do not seem to have
perceived it； they left the door open for a design more true and
more demonstrable than that which they excluded。 By making their
variations mainly due to effort and intelligence； they made organic
development run on all…fours with human progress； and with
inventions which we have watched growing up from small beginnings。
They made the development of man from the amoeba part and parcel of
the story that may be read； though on an infinitely smaller scale；
in the development of our most powerful marine engines from the
common kettle； or of our finest microscopes from the dew…drop。
The development of the steam…engine and the microscope is due to
intelligence and design； which did indeed utilise chance
suggestions； but which improved on these； and directed each step of
their accumulation； though never foreseeing more than a step or two
ahead； and often not so much as this。 The fact； as I have elsewhere
urged； that the man who made the first kettle did not foresee the
engines of the Great Eastern； or that he who first noted the
magnifying power of the dew…drop had no conception of our present
microscopesthe very limited amount； in fact； of design and
intelligence that was called into play at any one pointthis does
not make us deny that the steam…engine and microscope owe their
development to design。 If each step of the road was designed； the
whole journey was designed； though the particular end was not
designed when the journey was begun。 And so is it； according to the
older view of evolution； with the development of those living
organs； or machines； that are born