MR. DARWIN'S DEFENCE OF THE EXPRESSION, NATURAL SELECTION--PROFESSOR
MIVART AND NATURAL SELECTION.
So important is it that we should come to a clear understanding upon the
positions taken by Mr. Darwin and Lamarck respectively, that at the risk
of wearying the reader I will endeavour to exhaust this subject here. In
order to do so, I will follow Mr. Darwin's answer to those who have
objected to the expression, "natural selection."
Mr. Darwin says:--
"Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term 'natural
selection.' Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
variability."[365]
And small wonder if they have; but those who have fallen into this error
are hardly worth considering. The true complaint is that Mr. Darwin has
too often written of "natural selection" as though it does induce
variability, and that his language concerning it is so confusing that
the reader is not helped to see that it really comes to nothing but a
cloak of difference from his predecessors, under which there lurks a
concealed identity of opinion as to the main facts. The reader is thus
led to look upon it as something positive and special, and, in spite of
Mr. Darwin's disclaimer, to think of it as an actively efficient cause.
Few will deny that this complaint is a just one, or that ninety-nine out
of a hundred readers of average intelligence, if asked, after reading
Mr. Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' what was the most important cause of
modification, would answer "natural selection." Let the same readers
have read the 'Zoonomia' of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, or the 'Philosophie
Zoologique' of Lamarck, and they would at once reply, "the wishes of an
animal or plant, as varying with its varying conditions," or more
briefly, "sense of need."
"Whereas," continues Mr. Darwin, "it" (natural selection) "implies only
the preservation of such variations as arise, and are beneficial to the
being under its conditions of life. No one objects to agriculturists
speaking of the potent effects of man's selection."
Of course not; for there _is_ an actual creature man, who actually does
select with a set purpose in order to produce such and such a result,
which result he presently produces.
"And in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man
for some object selects, must first occur."
This shows that the complaint has already reached Mr. Darwin, that in
not showing us how "the individual differences first occur," he is
really leaving us absolutely in the dark as to the cause of all
modification--giving us an 'Origin of Species' with "the origin" cut
out; but I do not think that any reader who has not been compelled to go
somewhat deeply into the question would find out that this is the real
gist of the objection which Mr. Darwin is appearing to combat. A general
impression is left upon the reader that some very foolish objectors are
being put to silence, that Mr. Darwin is the most candid literary
opponent in the world, and as just as Aristides himself; but if the
unassisted reader will cross-question himself what it is all about, I
shall be much surprised if he is ready with his answer.
"Others"--to resume our criticism on Mr. Darwin's defence--"have
objected that the term implies conscious choice in the animals which
become modified, and it has been even urged that as plants have no
volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!"
This--unfortunately--must have been the objection of a slovenly, or
wilfully misapprehending reader, and was unworthy of serious notice. But
its introduction here tends to draw the reader from the true ground of
complaint, which is that at the end of Mr. Darwin's book we stand much
in the same place as we did when we started, as regards any knowledge of
what is the "origin of species."
"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
false term."
Then why use it when another, and, by Mr. Darwin's own admission, a
"more accurate" one is to hand in "the survival of the fittest"?[366]
This term is not appreciably longer than natural selection. Mr. Darwin
may say, indeed, that it is "sometimes" as convenient a term as natural
selection; but the kind of men who exercise permanent effect upon the
opinions of other people will bid such a passage as this stand aside
somewhat sternly. If a term is not appreciably longer than another, and
if at the same time it more accurately expresses the idea which is
intended to be conveyed, it is not sometimes only, but always, more
convenient, and should immediately be substituted for the less accurate
one.
No one complains of the use of what is, strictly speaking, an inaccurate
expression, when it is nevertheless the best that we can get. It may be
doubted whether there is any such thing possible as a perfectly accurate
expression. All words that are not simply names of things are apt to
turn out little else than compendious false analogies; but we have a
right to complain when a writer tells us that he is using a less
accurate expression when a more accurate one is ready to his hand.
Hence, when Mr. Darwin continues, "Who ever objected to chemists
speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? and yet an
acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it by
preference combines," he is beside the mark. Chemists do not speak of
"elective affinities" in spite of there being a more accurate and not
appreciably longer expression at their disposal.
"It has been said," continues Mr. Darwin, "that I speak of natural
selection as an active power or deity. But who objects to an author
speaking of the attraction of gravity? Everyone knows what is meant and
implied by such metaphorical expressions, and they are almost necessary
for brevity."
Mr. Darwin certainly does speak of natural selection "acting,"
"accumulating," "operating"; and if "every-one knew what was meant and
implied by this metaphorical expression," as they now do, or think they
do, in the case of the attraction of gravity, there might be less ground
of complaint; but the expression was known to very few at the time Mr.
Darwin introduced it, and was used with so much ambiguity, and with so
little to protect the reader from falling into the error of supposing
that it was the cause of the modifications which we see around us, that
we had a just right to complain, even in the first instance; much more
should we do so on the score of the retention of the expression when a
more accurate one had been found.
If the "survival of the fittest" had been used, to the total excision of
"natural selection" from every page in Mr. Darwin's book--it would have
been easily seen that "the survival of the fittest" is no more a cause
of modification, and hence can give no more explanation concerning the
origin of species, than the fact of a number of competitors in a race
failing to run the whole course, or to run it as quickly as the winner,
can explain how the winner came to have good legs and lungs. According
to Lamarck, the winner will have got these by means of sense of need,
and consequent practice and training, on his own part, and on that of
his forefathers; according to Mr. Darwin, the "most important means" of
his getting them is his "happening" to be born with them, coupled, with
the fact that his uncles and aunts for many generations could not run
so well as his ancestors in the direct line. But can the fact of his
uncles and aunts running less well than his fathers and mothers be a
means of his fathers and mothers coming to run _better than they used to
run_?
If the reader will bear in mind the idea of the runners in a race, it
will help him to see the point at issue between Mr. Darwin and Lamarck.
Perhaps also the double meaning of the word race, as expressing equally
a breed and a competition, may not be wholly without significance. What
we want to be told is, not that a runner will win the prize if he can
run "ever such a little" faster than his fellows--we know this--but by
what process he comes to be able to run ever such a little faster.
"So, again," continues Mr. Darwin, "it is difficult to avoid
personifying nature, but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and
product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as
ascertained by us."
This, again, is raising up a dead man in order to knock him down. Nature
has been personified for more than two thousand years, and every one
understands that nature is no more really a woman than hope or justice,
or than God is like the pictures of the mediaeval painters; no one whose
objection was worth notice could have objected to the personification of
nature.
Mr. Darwin concludes:--
"With a little familiarity, such superficial objections will be
forgotten."[367]
As a matter of fact, I do not see any greater tendency to acquiesce in
Mr. Darwin's claim on behalf of natural selection than there was a few
years ago, but on the contrary, that discontent is daily growing. To say
nothing of the Rev. J. J. Murphy and Professor Mivart, the late Mr. G.
H. Lewes did not find the objection a superficial one, nor yet did he
find it disappear "with a little familiarity"; on the contrary, the more
familiar he became with it the less he appeared to like it. I may even
go, without fear, so far as to say that any writer who now uses the
expression "natural selection," writes himself down thereby as behind
the age. It is with great pleasure that I observe Mr. Francis Darwin in
his recent lecture[368] to have kept clear of it altogether, and to have
made use of no expression, and advocated no doctrine to which either Dr.
Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck would not have readily assented. I think I may
affirm confidently that a few years ago any such lecture would have
contained repeated reference to Natural Selection. For my own part I
know of few passages in any theological writer which please me less than
the one which I have above followed sentence by sentence. I know of few
which should better serve to show us the sort of danger we should run if
we were to let men of science get the upper hand of us.
Natural Selection, then, is only another way of saying "Nature." Mr.
Darwin seems to be aware of this when he writes, "Nature, if I may be
allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the
fittest." And again, at the bottom of the same page, "It may
metaphorically be said that _natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinizing_ throughout the world the slightest variations."[369] It
may be metaphorically said that _Nature_ is daily and hourly
scrutinizing, but it cannot be said consistently with any right use of
words, metaphorical or otherwise, that natural selection scrutinizes,
unless natural selection is merely a somewhat cumbrous synonym for
Nature. When, therefore, Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the
"most important, but not the exclusive means" whereby any modification
has been effected, he is really saying that Nature is the most important
means of modification--which is only another way of telling us that
variation causes variations, and is all very true as far as it goes.
I did not read Professor Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' until I had
written all my own criticism on Mr. Darwin's position. From that work,
however, I now quote the following:--
"It cannot then be contested that the far-famed 'Origin of Species,'
that, namely, by 'Natural Selection,' has been repudiated in fact,
though not expressly even by its own author. This circumstance, which is
simply undeniable, might dispense us from any further consideration of
the hypothesis itself. But the "conspiracy of silence," which has
accompanied the repudiation tends to lead the unthinking many to suppose
that the same importance still attaches to it as at first. On this
account it may be well to ask the question, what, after all, _is_
'Natural Selection'?
"The answer may seem surprising to some, but it is none the less true,
that 'Natural Selection' is simply nothing. It is an apparently positive
name for a really negative effect, and is therefore an eminently
misleading term. By 'Natural Selection' is meant the result of all the
destructive agencies of Nature, destructive to individuals and to races
by destroying their lives or their powers of propagation. Evidently,
_the cause of the distinction of species_ (supposing such distinction to
be brought about in natural generation) _must be that which causes
variation, and variation in one determinate direction in at least
several individuals simultaneously_." I should like to have added here
the words "and during many successive generations," but they will go
very sufficiently without saying.
"At the same time," continues Professor Mivart, "it is freely conceded
that the destructive agencies in nature do succeed in preventing the
perpetuation of monstrous, abortive, and feeble attempts at the
performance of the evolutionary process, that they rapidly remove
antecedent forms when new ones are evolved more in harmony with
surrounding conditions, and that their action results in the formation
of new characters when these have once attained sufficient completeness
to be of real utility to their possessor.
"Continued reflection, and five years further pondering over the
problems of specific origin have more and more convinced me that the
conception, that the origin of all species 'man included' is due simply
to conditions which are (to use Mr. Darwin's own words) 'strictly
accidental,' is a conception utterly irrational."
. . . . . .
"With regard to the conception as now put forward by Mr. Darwin, I
cannot truly characterize it but by an epithet which I employ only with
much reluctance. I weigh my words and have present to my mind the many
distinguished naturalists who have accepted the notion, and yet I cannot
hesitate to call it a '_puerile hypothesis_.'"[370]
I am afraid I cannot go with Professor Mivart farther than this point,
though I have a strong feeling as though his conclusion is true, that
"the material universe is always and everywhere sustained and directed
by an infinite cause, for which to us the word mind is the least
inadequate and misleading symbol." But I feel that any attempt to deal
with such a question is going far beyond that sphere in which man's
powers may be at present employed with advantage: I trust, therefore,
that I may never try to verify it, and am indifferent whether it is
correct or not.
Again, I should probably differ from Professor Mivart in finding this
mind inseparable from the material universe in which we live and move.
So that I could neither conceive of such a mind influencing and
directing the universe from a point as it were outside the universe
itself, nor yet of a universe as existing without there being
present--or having been present--in its every particle something for
which mind should be the least inadequate and misleading symbol. But the
subject is far beyond me.
As regards Professor Mivart's denunciations of natural selection, I
have only one fault to find with them, namely, that they do not speak
out with sufficient bluntness. The difficulty of showing the fallacy of
Mr. Darwin's position, is the difficulty of grasping a will-o'-the-wisp.
A concluding example will put this clearly before the reader, and at the
same time serve to illustrate the most tangible feature of difference
between Mr. Darwin and Lamarck.
FOOTNOTES:
[365] 'Origin of Species,' p. 62.
[366] 'Origin of Species,' p. 49.
[367] 'Origin of Species,' p. 63.
[368] 'Nature,' March 14 and 21, 1878.
[369] 'Origin of Species,' p. 65.
[370] 'Lessons from Nature,' p. 300.