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！
older view of evolution； with the development of those living
organs； or machines； that are born with us； as part of the
perambulating carpenter's chest we call our bodies。 The older view
gives us our design； and gives us our evolution too。 If it refuses
to see a quasi…anthropomorphic God modelling each species from
without as a potter models clay； it gives us God as vivifying and
indwelling in all His creaturesHe in them； and they in Him。 If it
refuses to see God outside the universe； it equally refuses to see
any part of the universe as outside God。 If it makes the universe
the body of God； it also makes God the soul of the universe。 The
question at issue； then； between the Darwinism of Erasmus Darwin and
the neo…Darwinism of his grandson； is not a personal one； nor
anything like a personal one。 It not only involves the existence of
evolution； but it affects the view we take of life and things in an
endless variety of most interesting and important ways。 It is
imperative； therefore； on those who take any interest in these
matters； to place side by side in the clearest contrast the views of
those who refer the evolution of species mainly to accumulation of
variations that have no other inception than chance； and of that
older school which makes design perceive and develop still further
the goods that chance provides。
But over and above this； which would be in itself sufficient； the
historical mode of studying any question is the only one which will
enable us to comprehend it effectually。 The personal element cannot
be eliminated from the consideration of works written by living
persons for living persons。 We want to know who is whowhom we can
depend upon to have no other end than the making things clear to
himself and his readers； and whom we should mistrust as having an
ulterior aim on which he is more intent than on the furthering of
our better understanding。 We want to know who is doing his best to
help us； and who is only trying to make us help him； or to bolster
up the system in which his interests are vested。 There is nothing
that will throw more light upon these points than the way in which a
man behaves towards those who have worked in the same field with
himself； and； again； than his style。 A man's style； as Buffon long
since said； is the man himself。 By style； I do not； of course； mean
grammar or rhetoric； but that style of which Buffon again said that
it is like happiness； and vient de la douceur de l'ame。 When we
find a man concealing worse than nullity of meaning under sentences
that sound plausibly enough； we should distrust him much as we
should a fellow…traveller whom we caught trying to steal our watch。
We often cannot judge of the truth or falsehood of facts for
ourselves； but we most of us know enough of human nature to be able
to tell a good witness from a bad one。
However this may be； and whatever we may think of judging systems by
the directness or indirectness of those who advance them；
biologists； having committed themselves too rashly； would have been
more than human if they had not shown some pique towards those who
dared to say； first； that the theory of Messrs。 Darwin and Wallace
was unworkable； and secondly； that even though it were workable it
would not justify either of them in claiming evolution。 When
biologists show pique at all they generally show a good deal of
pique； but pique or no pique； they shunned Mr。 Spencer's objection
above referred to with a persistency more unanimous and obstinate
than I ever remember to have seen displayed even by professional
truth…seekers。 I find no rejoinder to it from Mr。 Darwin himself；
between 1865 when it was first put forward； and 1882 when Mr。 Darwin
died。 It has been similarly 〃ostrichised〃 by all the leading
apologists of Darwinism； so far at least as I have been able to
observe； and I have followed the matter closely for many years。 Mr。
Spencer has repeated and amplified it in his recent work； 〃The
Factors of Organic Evolution；〃 but it still remains without so much
as an attempt at serious answer； for the perfunctory and illusory
remarks of Mr。 Wallace at the end of his 〃Darwinism〃 cannot be
counted as such。 The best proof of its irresistible weight is that
Mr。 Darwin； though maintaining silence in respect to it； retreated
from his original position in the direction that would most obviate
Mr。 Spencer's objection。
Yet this objection has been repeatedly urged by the more prominent
anti…Charles…Darwinian authorities； and there is no sign that the
British public is becoming less rigorous in requiring people either
to reply to objections repeatedly urged by men of even moderate
weight； or to let judgment go by default。 As regards Mr。 Darwin's
claim to the theory of evolution generally； Darwinians are beginning
now to perceive that this cannot be admitted； and either say with
some hardihood that Mr。 Darwin never claimed it； or after a few
saving clauses to the effect that this theory refers only to the
particular means by which evolution has been brought about； imply
forthwith thereafter none the less that evolution is Mr。 Darwin's
theory。 Mr。 Wallace has done this repeatedly in his recent
〃Darwinism。〃 Indeed； I should be by no means sure that on the first
page of his preface； in the passage about 〃Darwin's theory；〃 which I
have already somewhat severely criticised； he was not intending
evolution by 〃Darwin's theory；〃 if in his preceding paragraph he had
not so clearly shown that he knew evolution to be a theory of
greatly older date than Mr。 Darwin's。
The history of sciencewell exemplified by that of the development
theoryis the history of eminent men who have fought against light
and have been worsted。 The tenacity with which Darwinians stick to
their accumulation of fortuitous variations is on a par with the
like tenacity shown by the illustrious Cuvier； who did his best to
crush evolution altogether。 It always has been thus； and always
will be； nor is it desirable in the interests of Truth herself that
it should be otherwise。 Truth is like moneylightly come； lightly
go； and if she cannot hold her own against even gross
misrepresentation； she is herself not worth holding。
Misrepresentation in the long run makes Truth as much as it mars
her； hence our law courts do not think it desirable that pleaders
should speak their bona fide opinions； much less that they should
profess to do so。 Rather let each side hoodwink judge and jury as
best it can； and let truth flash out from collision of defence and
accusation。 When either side will not collide； it is an axiom of
controversy that it desires to prevent the truth from being
elicited。
Let us now note the courses forced upon biologists by the
difficulties of Mr。 Darwin's distinctive feature。 Mr。 Darwin and
Mr。 Wallace； as is well known； brought the feature forward
simultaneously and independently of one another； but Mr。 Wallace
always believed in it more firmly than Mr。 Darwin did。 Mr。 Darwin
as a young man did not believe in it。 He wrote before 1889；
〃Nature； by making habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary； has
fitted the Fuegian for the climate and production