+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber’s note: |
| |
| This book was published in two volumes, of which this is the |
| first. The second volume was released as Project Gutenberg ebook |
| #40473, available at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40473 |
| |
| Numbers enclosed in square brackets, e.g. [1], relate to |
| footnotes, which have been placed at the end of the text. |
| Numbers enclosed in parentheses, e.g. (1), relate to works |
| referred to in the text and listed at the end of volume II. |
| |
| In the text versions of these two volumes, words in _italics_ |
| are enclosed in underscores, +bold+ words are enclosed in plus |
| signs, and words in =Gothic script= are enclosed in equal signs. |
| Curly brackets are used to represent subscripts, e.g. k{1}. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
THE HISTORY OF CREATION.
[Illustration: Development of a Calcareous Sponge (Olynthus).]
THE
HISTORY OF CREATION:
_OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EARTH AND ITS
INHABITANTS BY THE ACTION OF NATURAL CAUSES._
A POPULAR EXPOSITION OF
THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION IN GENERAL, AND OF THAT OF
DARWIN, GOETHE, AND LAMARCK IN PARTICULAR.
FROM THE GERMAN OF
ERNST HAECKEL,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF JENA.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED BY
E. RAY LANKESTER, M.A., FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.
_IN TWO VOLUMES._
VOL. I.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET.
1880.
A sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.
In all things, in all natures, in the stars
Of azure heaven, the unenduring clouds,
In flower and tree, in every pebbly stone
That paves the brooks, the stationary rocks,
The moving waters and the invisible air.
WORDSWORTH.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
CHAPTER I.
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF FILIATION,
OR DESCENT-THEORY.
PAGE
General Importance and Essential Nature of the Theory of
Descent as reformed by Darwin.—Its Special Importance to
Biology (Zoology and Botany).—Its Special Importance to
the History of the Natural Development of the Human
Race.—The Theory of Descent as the Non-Miraculous History
of Creation.—Idea of Creation.—Knowledge and
Belief.—History of Creation and History of
Development.—The Connection between the History of
Individual and Palæontological Development.—The Theory of
Purposelessness, or the Science of Rudimentary
Organs.—Useless and Superfluous Arrangements in
Organisms.—Contrast between the two entirely Opposed
Views of Nature: the Monistic (mechanical, causal) and the
Dualistic (teleological, vital).—Proof of the former by
the Theory of Descent.—Unity of Organic and Inorganic
Nature, and the Identity of the Active Causes in
both.—The Importance of the Theory of Descent to the
Monistic Conception of all Nature 1
CHAPTER II.
SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE THEORY OF DESCENT.
HISTORY OF CREATION ACCORDING TO LINNÆUS.
The Theory of Descent, or Doctrine of Filiation, as the
Monistic Explanation of Organic Natural Phenomena.—Its
Comparison with Newton’s Theory of Gravitation.—Limits of
Scientific Explanation and of Human Knowledge in
general.—All Knowledge founded originally on Sensuous
Experience, _à posteriori_.—Transition of _à posteriori_
knowledge, by inheritance, into _à priori_
knowledge.—Contrast between the Supernatural Hypotheses
of the Creation according to Linnæus, Cuvier, Agassiz,
and the Natural Theories of Development according to
Lamarck, Goethe, and Darwin.—Connection of the former
with the Monistic (mechanical), of the latter with the
Dualistic Conception of the Universe.—Monism and
Materialism.—Scientific and Moral Materialism.—The
History of Creation according to Moses.—Linnæus as the
Founder of the Systematic Description of Nature and
Distinction of Species.—Linnæus’ Classification and
Binary Nomenclature.—Meaning of Linnæus’ Idea of
Species.—His History of Creation.—Linnæus’ view of the
Origin of Species 24
CHAPTER III.
THE HISTORY OF CREATION ACCORDING TO CUVIER
AND AGASSIZ.
General Theoretical Meaning of the Idea of
Species.—Distinction between the Theoretical and
Practical Definition of the Idea of Species.—Cuvier’s
Definition of Species.—Merits of Cuvier as the Founder of
Comparative Anatomy.—Distinction of the Four Principal
Forms (types or branches) of the Animal Kingdom, by Cuvier
and Bär.—Cuvier’s Services to Palæontology.—His
Hypothesis of the Revolutions of our Globe, and the Epochs
of Creation separated by them.—Unknown Supernatural
Causes of the Revolutions, and the subsequent New
Creations.—Agassiz’s Teleological System of Nature.—His
Conception of the Plan of Creation, and its six Categories
(groups in classification).—Agassiz’s Views of the
Creation of Species.—Rude Conception of the Creator as a
man-like being in Agassiz’s Hypothesis of Creation.—Its
internal Inconsistency and Contradictions with the
important Palæontological Laws discovered by Agassiz 47
CHAPTER IV.
THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO GOETHE
AND OKEN.
Scientific Insufficiency of all Conceptions of a Creation
of Individual Species.—Necessity of the Counter Theories
of Development.—Historical Survey of the most Important
Theories of Development.—Aristotle.—His Doctrine of
Spontaneous Generation.—The Meaning of
Nature-philosophy.—Goethe.—His Merits as a
Naturalist.—His Metamorphosis of Plants.—His Vertebral
Theory of the Skull.—His Discovery of the Mid Jawbone in
Man.—Goethe’s Interest in the Dispute between Cuvier and
Geoffroy St. Hilaire.—Goethe’s Discovery of the two
Organic Formative Principles, of the Conservative
Principle of Specification (by Inheritance), and of the
Progressive Principle of Transformation (by
Adaptation).—Goethe’s Views of the Common Descent of all
Vertebrate Animals, including Man.—Theory of Development
according to Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus.—His Monistic
Conception of Nature.—Oken.—His
Nature-philosophy.—Oken’s Theory of Protoplasm.—Oken’s
Theory of Infusoria (Cell Theory).—Oken’s Theory of
Development 72
CHAPTER V.
THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO KANT AND
LAMARCK.
Kant’s Dualistic Biology.—His Conception of the Origin of
Inorganic Nature by Mechanical Causes, of Organic Nature
by Causes acting for a Definite Purpose.—Contradiction of
this Conception with his leaning towards the Theory of
Descent.—Kant’s Genealogical Theory of Development.—Its
Limitation by his Teleology.—Comparison of Genealogical
Biology with Comparative Philology.—Views in favour of
the Theory of Descent entertained by Leopold Buch, Bär,
Schleiden, Unger, Schaafhausen, Victor Carus,
Büchner.—French Nature-philosophy.—Lamarck’s Philosophic
Zoologique.—Lamarck’s Monistic (mechanical) System of
Nature.—His Views of the Interaction of the two Organic
Formative Tendencies of Inheritance and
Adaptation.—Lamarck’s Conception of Man’s Development
from Ape-like Mammals.—Geoffroy St. Hilaire’s, Naudin’s,
and Lecoq’s Defence of the Theory of Descent.—English
Nature-philosophy.—Views in favour of the Theory of
Descent entertained by Erasmus Darwin, W. Herbert, Grant,
Freke, Herbert Spencer, Hooker, Huxley.—The Double Merit
of Charles Darwin 100
CHAPTER VI.
THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO LYELL
AND DARWIN.
Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.—His Natural
History of the Earth’s Development.—Origin of the
Greatest Effects through the Multiplication of the
Smallest Causes.—Unlimited Extent of Geological
Periods.—Lyell’s Refutation of Cuvier’s History of
Creation.—The Establishment of the Uninterrupted
Connection of Historical Development by Lyell and
Darwin.—Biographical Notice of Charles Darwin.—His
Scientific Works.—His Theory of Coral
Reefs.—Development of the Theory of Selection.—A Letter
of Darwin’s.—The Contemporaneous Appearance of Darwin’s
and Alfred Wallace’s Theory of Selection.—Darwin’s Study
of Domestic Animals and Cultivated Plants.—Andreas
Wagner’s Notions as to the Special Creation of Cultivated
Organisms for the good of Man.—The Tree of Knowledge in
Paradise.—Comparison between Wild and Cultivated
Organisms.—Darwin’s Study of Domestic
Pigeons.—Importance of Pigeon Breeding.—Common Descent
of all Races of Pigeons 125
CHAPTER VII.
THE THEORY OF SELECTION (DARWINISM).
Darwinism (Theory of Selection) and Lamarckism (Theory of
Descent).—The Process of Artificial Breeding.—Selection
of the Different Individuals for After-breeding.—The
Active Causes of Transmutation.—Change connected with
Food and Transmission by Inheritance connected with
Propagation.—Mechanical Nature of these Two Physiological
Functions.—The Process of Natural Breeding: Selection in
the Struggle for Existence.—Malthus’ Theory of
Population.—The Proportion between the Numbers of
Potential and Actual Individuals of every Species of
Organisms.—General Struggle for Existence, or Competition
to attain the Necessaries of Life.—Transforming Force of
the Struggle for Existence.—Comparison of Natural and
Artificial Breeding.—Selection in the Life of
Man.—Military and Medical Selection 149
CHAPTER VIII.
TRANSMISSION BY INHERITANCE AND PROPAGATION.
Universality of Inheritance and Transmission by
Inheritance.—Special Evidences of the same.—Human Beings
with four, six, or seven Fingers and Toes.—Porcupine
Men.—Transmission of Diseases, especially Diseases of the
Mind.—Original Sin.—Hereditary Monarchies.—Hereditary
Aristocracy.—Hereditary Talents and Mental
Qualities.—Material Causes of Transmission by
Inheritance.—Connection between Transmission by
Inheritance and Propagation.—Spontaneous Generation and
Propagation.—Non-sexual or Monogonous
Propagation.—Propagation by Self-Division.—Monera and
Amœba.—Propagation by the formation of Buds, by the
formation of Germ-Buds, by the formation of
Germ-Cells.—Sexual or Amphigonous Propagation.—Formation
of Hermaphrodites.—Distinction of Sexes, or
Gonochorism.—Virginal Breeding, or
Parthenogenesis.—Material Transmission of Peculiarities
of both Parents to the Child by Sexual
Propagation.—Difference between Transmission by
Inheritance in Sexual and in Asexual Propagation 175
CHAPTER IX.
LAWS OF TRANSMISSION BY INHERITANCE. ADAPTATION AND
NUTRITION.
Distinction between Conservative and Progressive
Transmission by Inheritance.—Laws of Conservative
Transmission: Transmission of Inherited
Characters.—Uninterrupted or Continuous
Transmission.—Interrupted or Latent
Transmission.—Alternation of
Generations.—Relapse.—Degeneracy.—Sexual
Transmission.—Secondary Sexual Characters.—Mixed or
Amphigonous Transmission.—Hybrids.—Abridged or
Simplified Transmission.—Laws of Progressive Inheritance:
Transmission of Acquired Characters.—Adapted or Acquired
Transmission.—Fixed or Established
Transmission.—Homochronous Transmission (Identity in
Epoch).—Homotopic Transmission (Identity in
Part).—Adaptation and Mutability.—Connection between
Adaptation and Nutrition.—Distinction between Indirect
and Direct Adaptation 203
CHAPTER X.
LAWS OF ADAPTATION.
Laws of Indirect or Potential Adaptation.—Individual
Adaptation.—Monstrous or Sudden Adaptation.—Sexual
Adaptation.—Laws of Direct or Actual
Adaptation.—Universal Adaptation.—Cumulative
Adaptation.—Cumulative Influence of External Conditions
of Existence and Cumulative Counter-Influence of the
Organism.—Free Will.—Use and Non-use of
Organs.—Practice and Habit.—Correlative
Adaptation.—Correlation of Development.—Correlation of
Organs.—Explanation of Indirect or Potential Adaptation
by the Correlation of the Sexual Organs and of the other
parts of the Body.—Divergent Adaptation.—Unlimited or
Infinite Adaptation 227
CHAPTER XI.
NATURAL SELECTION BY THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE. DIVISION
OF LABOUR AND PROGRESS.
Interaction of the two Organic Formative Causes,
Inheritance and Adaptation.—Natural and Artificial
Selection.—Struggle for Existence, or Competition for the
Necessaries of Life.—Disproportion between the Number of
Possible or Potential, and the Number of Real or Actual
Individuals.—Complicated Correlations of all Neighbouring
Organisms.—Mode of Action in Natural
Selection.—Homochromic Selection as the Cause of
Sympathetic Colourings.—Sexual Selection as the Cause of
the Secondary Sexual Characters.—Law of Separation or
Division of Labour (Polymorphism, Differentiation,
Divergence of Characters).—Transition of Varieties into
Species.—Idea of Species.—Hybridism.—Law of Progress or
Perfecting (Progresses, Teleosis) 252
CHAPTER XII.
LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIC TRIBES AND OF INDIVIDUALS.
PHYLOGENY AND ONTOGENY.
Laws of the Development of Mankind: Differentiation and
Perfecting.—Mechanical Cause of these two Fundamental
Laws.—Progress without Differentiation, and
Differentiation without Progress.—Origin of Rudimentary
Organs by Non-use and Discontinuance of
Habit.—Ontogenesis, or Individual Development of
Organisms.—Its General Importance.—Ontogeny, or the
Individual History of Development of Vertebrate Animals,
including Man.—The Fructification of the Egg.—Formation
of the Three Germ Layers.—History of the Development of
the Central Nervous System, of the Extremities, of the
Branchial Arches, and of the Tail of Vertebrate
Animals.—Causal Connection and Parallelism of Ontogenesis
and Phylogenesis, that is, of the Development of
Individuals and Tribes.—Causal Connection of the
Parallelism of Phylogenesis and of Systematic
Development.—Parallelism of the three Organic Series of
Development 280
CHAPTER XIII.
THEORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSE AND OF THE
EARTH. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. THE CARBON THEORY. THE
PLASTID THEORY.
History of the Development of the Earth.—Kant’s Theory of
the Development of the Universe, or the Cosmological Gas
Theory.—Development of Suns, Planets, and Moons.—First
Origin of Water.—Comparison of Organisms and
Anorgana.—Organic and Inorganic Substances.—Degrees of
Density, or Conditions of Aggregation.—Albuminous
Combinations of Carbon.—Organic and Inorganic
Forms.—Crystals and Formless Organisms without
Organs.Stereometrical Fundamental Forms of Crystals and
of Organisms.—Organic and Inorganic Forces.—Vital
Force.—Growth and Adaptation in Crystals and in
Organisms.—Formative Tendencies of Crystals.—Unity of
Organic and Inorganic Nature.—Spontaneous Generation, or
Archigony.—Autogony and Plasmogony.—Origin of Monera by
Spontaneous Generation.—Origin of Cells from Monera.—The
Cell Theory.—The Plastid Theory.—Plastids, or
Structural-Units.—Cytods and Cells.—Four Different Kinds
of Plastids 316
CHAPTER XIV.
MIGRATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANISMS. CHOROLOGY AND THE
ICE-PERIOD OF THE EARTH.
Chorological Facts and Causes.—Origin of most Species in
one Single Locality.—“Centres of Creation.”—Distribution
by Migration.—Active and Passive Migrations of Animals
and Plants.—Means of Transport.—Transport of Germs by
Water and by Wind.—Continual Change of the Area of
Distribution by Elevations and Depressions of the
Ground.—Chorological Importance of Geological
Processes.—Influence of the Change of Climate.—Ice or
Glacial Period.—Its Importance to Chorology.—Importance
of Migrations for the Origin of New Species.—Isolation of
Colonists.—Wagner’s Law of Migration.—Connection between
the Theory of Migration and the Theory of
Selection.—Agreement of its Results with the Theory of
Descent 350
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PLATES.
PAGE
Development of a Calcareous Sponge (Olynthus) _Frontispiece_
I.—Life History of a Simplest Organism _To face page_ 184
II., III.—Germs or Embryos of Four Vertebrates ” 306
FIGURES.
1.—Propagation of Moneron 186
2.—Propagation of Amœba 188
3.—Egg of Mammal 189
4.—First Development of Mammal’s Egg 190
5.—The Human Egg Enlarged 297
6.—Development of Mammal’s Egg 299
7.—Embryo of a Mammal or Bird 304
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.
I am desirous of prefacing the English edition of the “History of
Creation” with a few remarks which may serve to explain the origin and
object of this book. In the year 1866 I published, under the title
“Generelle Morphologie,” a somewhat comprehensive work, which
constituted the first attempt to apply the general doctrine of
development to the whole range of organic morphology (Anatomy and
Biogenesis), and thus to make use of the vast march onwards which the
genius of Charles Darwin has effected in all biological science by his
reform of the Descent Theory and its establishment through the doctrine
of selection. At the same time, in the “Generelle Morphologie,” the
first attempt was made to introduce the Descent Theory into the
systematic classification of animals and plants, and to found a “natural
system” on the basis of genealogy; that is, to construct hypothetical
pedigrees for the various species of organisms.
The “Generelle Morphologie” found but few readers, for which the
voluminous and unpopular style of treatment, and its too extensive Greek
terminology, may be chiefly to blame. But a proportionately large
measure of approval has met the “Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte” in
Germany. This book took its origin in the shorthand notes of a course of
lectures which treated, before a mixed audience and in a popular form,
the most important topics discussed in the “Generelle Morphologie.” The
notes were subsequently revised, and received considerable additions.
The book appeared first in 1868, its fourth edition in 1873, and has
been translated into several languages. I hope that it may also find
sympathy in the fatherland of Darwin, the more so since it contains
special morphological evidence in favour of many of the important
doctrines with which this greatest naturalist of our century has
enriched science. Proud as England may be to be called the fatherland of
Newton, who, with his law of gravitation, brought inorganic nature under
the dominion of natural laws of cause and effect, yet may she with even
greater pride reckon Charles Darwin among her sons—he who solved the
yet harder problem of bringing the complicated phenomena of organic
nature under the sway of the same natural laws.
The reproach which is now oftenest made against the Descent Theory is
that it is not securely founded, not sufficiently proven. Not only its
distinct opponents maintain that there is a want of satisfactory proofs,
but even faint-hearted and wavering adherents declare that Darwin’s
hypothesis is still wanting fundamental proof. Neither the former nor
the latter estimate rightly the immeasurable weight which the great
series of phenomena of comparative anatomy and ontogeny, palæontology
and taxonomy, chorology and œcology, cast into the scale in favour of
the doctrine of filiation. Darwin’s Theory of Selection, which
completely explains the origin of species through the combined action of
Inheritance and Adaptation in the struggle for existence, also appears
to these persons not sufficient. They demand, over and above, that the
descent of species from common ancestral forms shall be proved in a
particular case; that, in contradistinction to the _synthetic_ proofs
adduced for the Descent Theory, the _analytic_ proof of the genealogical
continuity of the several species shall be brought forward.
This “analytical solution of the problem of the origin of species” I
have myself endeavoured to afford in my recently published “Monograph of
the Calcareous Sponges.” For five consecutive years I have investigated
this small but highly instructive group of animals in all its forms in
the most careful manner, and I venture to maintain that the monograph,
which is the result of those studies, is the most complete and accurate
morphological analysis of an entire organic group which has up to this
time been made. Provided with the whole of the material for study as yet
brought together, and assisted by numerous contributions from all parts
of the world, I was able to work over the whole group of organic forms
known as the Calcareous Sponges in that greatest possible degree of
fulness which appeared indispensable for the proof of the common origin
of its species. This particular animal group is especially fitted for
the analytical solution of the species problem, because it presents
exceedingly simple conditions of organisation, because in it the
morphological conditions possess a greatly superior, and the
physiological conditions an inferior, import, and because all species of
Calcispongiæ are remarkable for the fluidity and plasticity of their
form. With a view to these facts, I made two journeys to the sea-coast
(1869 to Norway, 1871 to Dalmatia), in order to study as large a number
of individuals as possible in their natural circumstances, and to
collect specimens for comparison. Of many species, I compared several
hundred individuals in the most careful way. I examined with the
microscope and measured in the most accurate manner the details of form
of all the species. As the final result of these exhaustive and almost
endless examinations and measurements it appeared that “good species,”
in the ordinary dogmatic sense of the systematists, have no existence at
all among the Calcareous Sponges; that the most different forms are
connected one with another by numberless gradational transition forms;
and that all the different species of Calcareous Sponges are derived
from a single exceedingly simple ancestral form, the Olynthus. A drawing
of the Olynthus and its earliest stages of development (observe
especially the highly important Gastrula) is given in the frontispiece
of the present edition. Illustrations of the various structural details
which establish the derivation of all Calcareous Sponges from the
Olynthus, are given in the atlas of sixty plates which accompanies my
monograph of the group. In the gastrula, moreover, is now also found the
common ancestral form from which all the tribes of animals (the lowest
group, that of the protozoa, alone being excepted) can without
difficulty be derived. It is one of the most ancient and important
ancestors of the human race!
If we take for the limitation of genus and species an average standard,
derived from the actual practice of systematists, and apply this to the
whole of the Calcareous Sponges at present known, we can distinguish
about twenty-one genera, with one hundred and eleven species (as I have
done in the second volume of the Monograph). I have, however, shown that
we may draw up, in addition to this, another systematic arrangement
(more nearly agreeing with the arrangement of the Calcispongiæ hitherto
in vogue) which gives thirty-nine genera and two hundred and eighty-nine
species. A systematist who gives a more limited extension to the “ideal
species” might arrange the same series of forms in forty-three genera
and three hundred and eighty-one species, or even in one hundred and
thirteen genera and five hundred and ninety species; another systematist
on the other hand, who takes a wider limit for the “abstract species,”
would use in arranging the same series of forms only three genera, with
twenty-one species, or might even satisfy himself with one genus and
seven species. The delimitation of species and genera appears to be so
arbitrary a matter, on account of endless varieties and transitional
forms in this group, that their number is entirely left to the
subjective taste of the individual systematist. In truth, from the point
of view of the theory of descent, it appears altogether an unimportant
question as to whether we give a wider or a narrower signification to
allied groups of forms—whether we choose, that is to say, to call them
genera or species, varieties or sub-species. The main fact remains
undeniable, viz., the common origin of all the species from one
ancestral form. The many-shaped Calcareous Sponges furnish, in the very
remarkable conditions of their varieties of aggregation (metrocormy), a
body of evidence in favour of this view which could hardly be more
convincing. Not unfrequently the case occurs of several different forms
growing out from a single “stock” or “cormus”—forms which until now
have been regarded by systematists, not only as belonging to different
species, but even to different genera. Fig. 10 in the frontispiece
represents such a composite stock. This solid and tangible piece of
evidence in favour of the common descent of different species ought, one
would think, to satisfy the most determined sceptic!
In point of fact, I have a right to expect of my opponents that they
shall carefully consider the “exact empirical proof” here brought
forward for them, as they have so eagerly demanded. The opponents of the
doctrine of filiation, who have too little power of weighing evidence,
or possess too little knowledge to appreciate the overpowering weight of
proof afforded by the synthetical argument (comparative anatomy,
ontogeny, taxonomy, etc.), may yet be able to follow me along the path
of analytical proof, and attempt to upset the conclusion as to the
common origin of all species of all Calcareous Sponges which I have
given in my Monograph. I must, however, repeat that this conclusion is
based on the most minute investigation of an extraordinarily rich mass
of material,—that it is securely established by thousands of the most
careful microscopical observations, measurements, and comparisons of
every single part, and that thousands of collected microscopic
preparations render, at any moment, the most searching criticism of my
results confirmatory of their correctness. One may hope, then, that
opponents will endeavour to confront me on the ground of this “exact
empiricism,” instead of trying to damn my “nature-philosophical
speculations.” One may hope that they will endeavour to bring forward
some evidence to show that the latter do not follow as the legitimate
consequences of the former. May they, however, spare me the
empty—though by even respectable naturalists oft-repeated—phrase, that
the monistic nature-philosophy, as expounded in the “General
Morphology,” and in the “History of Creation,” is wanting in actual
proofs. The proofs are there. Of course those who turn their eyes away
from them will not see them. Precisely that “exact” form of analytical
proof which the opponents of the descent theory demand is to be found,
by anybody who wishes to find it, in the “Monograph of the Calcareous
Sponges.”
ERNST HEINRICH HAECKEL.
_Jena, June 24th, 1873._
NOTE.
Feeling sure that such a book as Professor Haeckel’s
“Schöpfungsgeschichte” would do a great deal of good, if placed in the
hands of the English reading public, and of commencing students of
Natural History, I gladly undertook to revise for the publishers the
present translation, which was made by a young lady. I have not
attempted to escape a difficulty by ignoring the German names made use
of by Professor Haeckel for classes, orders, and genera, but have
adopted English equivalents. I do not submit these names as a maturely
considered English nomenclature, they appear here simply as necessary
parts of a close rendering of the German work. I do, however, hold that
some such series of English terms is both possible and useful, and do
not doubt—in spite of the pretended hostility of the genius of our
language, and the curious sentimental objection that English names are
_unscientific_—that we shall before long make use of plain English in
speaking of the various groups of plants and animals—much to the gain
of the larger public, and without detriment to the latinized
nomenclature established for the purposes of the professional student.
E. R. L.
_Oxford, October, 1874._
THE HISTORY OF CREATION.
CHAPTER I.
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF FILIATION, OR DESCENT-THEORY.
General Importance and Essential Nature of the Theory of
Descent as reformed by Darwin.—Its Special Importance to
Biology (Zoology and Botany).—Its Special Importance to
the History of the Natural Development of the Human
Race.—The Theory of Descent as the Non-Miraculous
History of Creation.—Idea of Creation.—Knowledge and
Belief.—History of Creation and History of
Development.—The Connection between the History of
Individual and Palæontological Development.—The Theory
of Purposelessness, or the Science of Rudimentary
Organs.—Useless and Superfluous Arrangements in
Organisms.—Contrast between the two entirely opposed
Views of Nature: the Monistic (mechanical, causal) and
the Dualistic (teleological, vital).—Proof of the former
by the Theory of Descent.—Unity of Organic and Inorganic
Nature, and the Identity of the Active Causes in
both.—The Importance of the Theory of Descent to the
Monistic Conception of all Nature.
The intellectual movement to which the impulse was given, thirteen years
ago, by the English naturalist, Charles Darwin, in his celebrated work,
“On the Origin of Species,”(1) has, within this short period, assumed
dimensions which cannot but excite the most universal interest. It is
true the scientific theory set forth in that work, which is commonly
called briefly Darwinism, is only a small fragment of a far more
comprehensive doctrine—a part of the universal Theory of Development,
which embraces in its vast range the whole domain of human knowledge.
But the manner in which Darwin has firmly established the latter by the
former is so convincing, and the direction which has been given by the
unavoidable conclusions of that theory to all our views of the universe,
must appear to every thinking man of such deep significance, that its
general importance cannot be over estimated. There is no doubt that this
immense extension of our intellectual horizon must be looked upon as by
far the most important, and rich in results, among all the numerous and
grand advances which natural science has made in our day.
When our century, with justice, is called the age of natural science,
when we look with pride upon the immensely important progress made in
all its branches, we are generally in the habit of thinking more of
immediate practical results, and less of the extension of our general
knowledge of nature. We call to mind the complete reform, so infinitely
rich in consequences to human intercourse, which has been effected by
the development of machinery, by railways, steamships, telegraphs, and
other inventions of physics. Or we think of the enormous influence which
chemistry has brought to bear upon medicine, agriculture, and upon all
arts and trades.
But much as we may value this influence of modern science upon practical
life, still it must, estimated from a higher and more general point of
view, stand most assuredly below the enormous influence which the
theoretical progress of modern science will have on the entire range of
human knowledge, on our conception of the universe, and on the
perfecting of man’s culture.
Think of the immense revolutions in all our theoretical views which we
owe to the general application of the microscope. Think of the cell
theory, which explains the apparent unity of the human organism as the
combined result of the union of a mass of elementary vital units. Or
consider the immense extension of our theoretical horizon which we owe
to spectral analysis and to the mechanical theory of heat. But among all
these wonderful theoretical advances, the theory wrought out by Darwin
occupies by far the highest rank.
Every one of my readers has heard of the name of Darwin. But most
persons have probably only an imperfect idea of the real value of his
theory. If a reader estimates as of equal value all that has been
written upon Darwin’s memorable work since its appearance, the value of
the theory will appear very doubtful to him, supposing that he has not
been engaged in the organic natural sciences, and has not penetrated
into the inner secrets of zoology and botany. The criticisms of it are
so full of contradictions, and for the most part so defective, that we
ought not to be at all astonished that even now, after the lapse of
thirteen years since the appearance of Darwin’s work, it has not gained
half that importance which is justly due to it, and which sooner or
later it certainly will attain.
Most of the innumerable writings which have been published during these
years, both for and against Darwinism, are the productions of persons
who are entirely wanting in the necessary amount of biological, and
especially of zoological, knowledge. Although almost all of the more
celebrated naturalists of the present day are adherents of the theory,
yet only a few of them have endeavoured to procure its acceptance and
recognition in larger circles. Hence the odd contradictions and the
strange opinions which may still be heard everywhere about Darwinism.
This is the reason which induces me to make Darwin’s theory, and those
further doctrines which are connected with it, the subject of these
pages, which, I hope, will be generally intelligible. I hold it to be
the duty of naturalists, not merely to meditate upon improvements and
discoveries in the narrow circle to which their speciality confines
them, not merely to pore over their one study with love and care, but
also to seek to make the important general results of it fruitful to the
mass, and to assist in spreading the knowledge of physical science among
the people. The highest triumph of the human mind, the true knowledge of
the most general laws of nature, ought not to remain the private
possession of a privileged class of savans, but ought to become the
common property of all mankind.
The theory which, through Darwin, has been placed at the head of all our
knowledge of nature, is usually called the Doctrine of Filiation, or the
Theory of Descent. Others term it the Transmutation Theory. Both
designations are correct. For this doctrine affirms, that _all
organisms_ (viz., all species of animals, all species of plants, which
have ever existed or still exist on the earth) _are derived from one
single, or from a few simple original forms, and that they have
developed themselves from these in the natural course of a gradual
change_. Although this theory of development had already been brought
forward and defended by several great naturalists, and especially by
Lamarck and Goethe, in the beginning of our century, still it was
through Darwin, thirteen years ago, that it received its complete
demonstration and causal foundation; and this is the reason why now it
is commonly and exclusively (though not quite correctly) designated as
_Darwin’s Theory_.
The great and really inestimable value of the Theory of Descent appears
in a different light, accordingly as we merely consider its more
immediate connection with organic natural science, or its larger
influence upon the whole range of man’s knowledge of the universe.
Organic natural science, or Biology, which as Zoology treats of animals,
as Botany of plants, is completely reformed and founded anew by the
Theory of Descent. For by this theory we are made acquainted with the
active causes of organic forms, while up to the present time Zoology and
Botany have simply been occupied with the facts of these forms. We may
therefore also term the theory of descent a _mechanical explanation of
organic forms_, or the science of the true causes of Organic Nature.
As I cannot take for granted that my readers are all familiar with the
terms “organic and inorganic nature,” and as the contrast of both these
natural bodies will, in future, occupy much of our attention, I must say
a few words in explanation of them. We designate as _Organisms_, or
_Organic bodies_, all _living creatures_ or _animated bodies_; therefore
all plants and animals, man included; for in them we can almost always
prove a combination of various parts (instruments or organs) which work
together for the purpose of producing the phenomena of life. Such a
combination we do not find in _Anorgana_, or inorganic natural
bodies—the so-called dead or _inanimate bodies_, such as minerals or
stones, water, the atmospheric air, etc. Organisms always contain
albuminous combinations of carbon in a semi-fluid condition of
aggregation, which are always wanting in the Anorgana. Upon this
important distinction rests the division of all natural history into two
great and principal parts—_Biology_, or the science of Organisms
(Zoology and Botany), and _Anorganology_, or the science of Anorgana
(Mineralogy, Geology, Meteorology, etc.).
The great value of the Theory of Descent in regard to Biology consists,
as I have already remarked, in its explaining to us the origin of
organic forms in a mechanical way, and pointing out their active causes.
But however highly and justly this service of the Theory of Descent may
be valued, yet it is almost eclipsed by the immense importance which a
single necessary inference from it claims for itself alone. This
necessary and unavoidable inference is the theory of the _animal descent
of the human race_.
The determination of the position of man in nature, and of his relations
to the totality of things—this question of all questions for mankind,
as Huxley justly calls it—is finally solved by the knowledge that man
is descended from animals. In consequence of Darwin’s reformed Theory of
Descent, we are now in a position to establish scientifically the
groundwork of a _non-miraculous history of the development of the human
race_. All those who have defended Darwin’s theory, as well as all its
thoughtful opponents, have acknowledged that, as a matter of necessity,
it follows from his theory that the human race, in the first place, must
be traced to ape-like mammals, and further back to the lower vertebrate
animals.
It is true Darwin himself did not express at first this most important
of all the inferences from his theory. In his work, “On the Origin of
Species,” not a word is found about the animal descent of man. The
courageous but cautious naturalist was at that time purposely silent on
the subject, for he anticipated that this most important of all the
conclusions of the Theory of Descent was at the same time the greatest
obstacle to its being generally accepted and acknowledged. Certain it is
that Darwin’s book would have created, from the beginning, even much
more opposition and offence, if this most important inference had at
once been clearly expressed. It was not till twelve years later, in his
work on “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,” that
Darwin openly acknowledged that far-reaching conclusion, and expressly
declared his entire agreement with those naturalists who had, in the
meantime, themselves formed that conclusion. Manifestly the effect of
this conclusion is immense, and _no_ science will be able to escape from
the consequences. Anthropology, or the science of man, and consequently
all philosophy, are thereby thoroughly reformed in all their various
branches.
It will be a later task in these pages to discuss this special point. I
shall not treat of the theory of the animal descent of man till I have
spoken of Darwin’s theory, and its general foundation and importance. To
express it in one word, that most important, but (to most men) at first
repulsive, conclusion is nothing more than a special deduction, which we
must draw from the general inductive law of the descent theory (now
firmly established), according to the stern commands of inexorable
logic.
Perhaps nothing will make the full meaning of the theory of descent
clearer than calling it the “_non-miraculous history of creation_.” I
have therefore chosen that name for this work. It is, however, correct
only in a certain sense, and it must be borne in mind that, strictly
speaking, the expression “non-miraculous history of creation” contains a
“_contradictio in adjecto_.”
In order to understand this, let us for a moment examine somewhat more
closely what we understand by _creation_. If we understand the creation
to mean the _coming into existence of a body_ by a creative power or
force, we may then either think of the _coming into existence of its
substance_ (corporeal matter), or of the _coming into existence of its
form_ (the corporeal form).
Creation in the former sense, as the _coming into existence of matter_,
does not concern us here at all. This process, if indeed it ever took
place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can therefore never
become a subject of scientific inquiry. Natural science teaches that
matter is eternal and imperishable, for experience has never shown us
that even the smallest particle of matter has come into existence or
passed away. Where a natural body seems to disappear, as for example by
burning, decaying, evaporation, etc., it merely changes its form, its
physical composition or chemical combination. In like manner the coming
into existence of a natural body, for example, of a crystal, a fungus,
an infusorium, depends merely upon the different particles, which had
before existed in a certain form or combination, assuming a new form or
combination in consequence of changed conditions of existence. But never
yet has an instance been observed of even the smallest particle of
matter having vanished, or even of an atom being added to the already
existing mass. Hence a naturalist can no more imagine the coming into
existence of matter, than he can imagine its disappearance, and he
therefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as
a given fact. If any person feels the necessity of conceiving the coming
into existence of this matter as the work of a supernatural creative
power, of the creative force of something outside of matter, we have
nothing to say against it. But we must remark, that thereby not even the
smallest advantage is gained for a scientific knowledge of nature. Such
a conception of an immaterial force, which at the first creates matter,
is an article of faith which has nothing whatever to do with human
science. _Where faith commences, science ends._ Both these arts of the
human mind must be strictly kept apart from each other. Faith has its
origin in the poetic imagination; knowledge, on the other hand,
originates in the reasoning intelligence of man. Science has to pluck
the blessed fruits from the tree of knowledge, unconcerned whether these
conquests trench upon the poetical imaginings of faith or not.
If, therefore, science makes the “history of creation” its highest, most
difficult, and most comprehensive problem, it must accept as its idea of
creation the second explanation of the word, viz., _the coming into
being of the form_ of natural bodies. In this way geology, which tries
to investigate the origin of the inorganic surface of the earth as it
now appears, and the manifold historical changes in the form of the
solid crust of the earth, may be called the history of the creation of
the earth. In like manner, the history of the development of animals and
plants, which investigates the origin of living forms, and the manifold
historical changes in animal and vegetable forms, may be termed the
history of the creation of organisms. As, however, in the idea of
creation, although used in this sense, the unscientific idea of a
creator existing outside of matter, and changing it, may easily creep
in, it will perhaps be better in future to substitute for it the more
accurate term, _development_.
The great value which the _History of Development_ possesses for the
scientific understanding of animal and vegetable forms, has now been
generally acknowledged for many years, and without it it would be
impossible to make any sure progress in organic morphology, or the
theory of forms. But by the history of development, only one part of
this science has generally been understood, namely, that of organic
individuals, usually called Embryology, but more correctly and
comprehensively, _Ontogeny_. But, besides this, there is another history
of development of organic species, genera, and tribes (phyla), which has
the most important relations to the former.
The subject of this is furnished to us by the science of petrifactions,
or palæontology, which shows us that each tribe of animals and plants,
during different periods of the earth’s history, has been represented by
a series of entirely different genera and species. Thus, for example,
the tribe of vertebrated animals was represented by classes of fish,
amphibious animals, reptiles, birds, and mammals, and each of these
groups, at different periods, by quite different kinds. This
palæontological history of the development of organisms, which we may
term _Phylogeny_, stands in the most important and remarkable relation
to the other branch of organic history of development, I mean that of
individuals, or Ontogeny. On the whole, the one runs parallel to the
other. In fact, the history of individual development, or Ontogeny, is a
short and quick recapitulation of palæontological development, or
Phylogeny, dependent on the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation.
As I shall have, later, to explain this most interesting and important
coincidence more fully, I shall not dwell further upon it here, and
merely call attention to the fact that it can only be explained and its
causes understood by the Theory of Descent, while without that theory it
remains completely incomprehensible and inexplicable. The Theory of
Descent in the same way shows us _why_ individual animals and plants
must develop at all, and why they do not come into life at once in a
perfect and developed state. No supernatural history of creation can in
any way explain to us the great mystery of organic development. To this
most weighty question, as well as to all other biological questions, the
Theory of Descent gives us perfectly satisfactory answers—and always
answers which refer to purely mechanical causes, and point to purely
physico-chemical forces as the causes of phenomena which we were
formerly accustomed to ascribe to the direct action of supernatural,
creative forces. Hence, by our theory the mystic veil of the miraculous
and supernatural, which has hitherto been allowed to hide the
complicated phenomena of this branch of natural knowledge, is removed.
All the departments of Botany and Zoology, and especially the most
important portion of the latter, Anthropology, become reasonable. The
dimming mirage of mythological fiction can no longer exist in the clear
sunlight of scientific knowledge.
Of special interest among general biological phenomena are those which
are quite irreconcilable with the usual supposition, that every organism
is the product of a creative power, acting for a definite object.
Nothing in this respect caused the earlier naturalists greater
difficulty than the explanation of the so-called “_rudimentary
organs_,”—those parts in animal and vegetable bodies which really have
no function, which have no physiological importance, and yet exist in
form. These parts deserve the most careful attention, although most
unscientific men know little or nothing about them. Almost every
organism, almost every animal and plant possesses, besides the obviously
useful arrangements of its organization, other arrangements the purpose
of which it is utterly impossible to make out.
Examples of this are found everywhere. In the embryos of many ruminating
animals—among others, in our common cattle—fore-teeth, or incisors,
are placed in the mid-bone of the upper jaw, which never fully develop,
and therefore serve no purpose. The embryos of many whales—which
afterwards possess the well-known whalebone instead of teeth—yet have
before they are born, and while they take no nourishment, teeth in their
jaws, which set of teeth never comes into use. Moreover, most of the
higher animals possess muscles which are never employed; even man has
such rudimentary muscles. Most of us are incapable of moving our ears as
we wish, although the muscles for this movement exist, and although
individual persons who have taken the trouble to exercise these muscles
do succeed in moving their ears. It is still possible, by special
exercise, by the persevering influence of the will upon the nervous
system, to reanimate the almost extinct activity in the existing but
imperfect organs, which are on the road to complete disappearance. On
the other hand, we can no longer do this with another set of small
rudimentary muscles, which still exist in the cartilage of the outer
ear, but which are always perfectly inactive. Our long-eared ancestors
of the tertiary period—apes, semi-apes, and pouched animals, like most
other mammals, moved their large ear-flaps freely and actively; their
muscles were much more strongly developed and of great importance. In a
similar way, many varieties of dogs and rabbits, under the influence of
civilized life, have left off “pricking up” their ears, and thereby have
acquired imperfect auricular muscles and loose-hanging ears, although
their wild ancestors moved their stiff ears in many ways.
Man has also these rudimentary organs on other parts of his body; they
are of no importance to life, and never perform any function. One of the
most remarkable, although the smallest organ of this kind, is the little
crescent-like fold, the so-called “plica semilunaris,” which we have in
the inner corner of the eye, near the root of the nose. This
insignificant fold of skin, which is quite useless to our eye, is the
imperfect remnant of a third inner eyelid which, besides the upper and
under eyelid, is highly developed in other mammals, and in birds and
reptiles. Even our very remote ancestors of the Silurian period, the
Primitive Fishes, seem to have possessed this third eyelid, the
so-called nictitating membrane. For many of their nearest kin, who still
exist in our day but little changed in form, viz., many sharks, possess
a very strong nictitating membrane, which they can draw right across the
whole eyeball, from the inner corner of the eye.
Eyes which do not see form the most striking example of rudimentary
organs. These are found in very many animals, which live in the dark, as
in caves or underground. Their eyes often exist in a well-developed
condition, but they are covered by membrane, so that no ray of light
can enter, and they can never see. Such eyes, without the function of
sight, are found in several species of moles and mice which live
underground, in serpents and lizards, in amphibious animals (Proteus,
Cæcilia), and in fishes; also in numerous invertebrate animals, which
pass their lives in the dark, as do many beetles, crabs, snails, worms,
etc.
An abundance of the most interesting examples of rudimentary organs is
furnished by Comparative Osteology, or the study of the skeletons of
vertebrate animals, one of the most attractive branches of Comparative
Anatomy. In most of the vertebrate animals we find two pairs of limbs on
the body, a pair of fore-legs and a pair of hind-legs. Very often,
however, one or the other pair is imperfect; it is seldom that both are,
as in the case of serpents and some varieties of eel-like fish. But some
serpents, viz., the giant serpents (Boa, Python), have still in the
hinder portion of the body some useless little bones, which are the
remains of lost hind-legs.
In like manner the mammals of the whale tribe (Cetacea), which have only
fore-legs fully developed (breast-fins,), have further back in their
body another pair of utterly superfluous bones, which are remnants of
undeveloped hind-legs. The same thing occurs in many genuine fishes, in
which the hind-legs have in like manner been lost.
Again, in our slow-worm (Anguis), and in some other lizards, no
fore-legs exist, although they have a perfect shoulder apparatus within
their bodies, which should serve as a means of affixing the legs.
Moreover, in various vertebrate animals, the single bones of both pairs
of legs are found in all the different stages of imperfection, and often
the degenerate bones and those muscles belonging to them are partially
preserved, without their being able in any way to perform any function.
The instrument is still there, but it can no longer play.
Moreover, we can, almost as generally, find rudimentary organs in the
blossoms of plants, inasmuch as one part or another of the male organs
of propagation—the stamen and anther, or of the female organs of
propagation—the style, germ, etc.—is more or less imperfect or
abortive. Among these we can trace, in various closely connected species
of plants, the organ in all stages of degeneration. Thus, for example,
the great natural family of lip-blossomed plants (Labiatæ), to which the
balm, peppermint, marjoram, ground-ivy, thyme, etc., belong, are
distinguished by the fact that their mouth-like, two-lipped flower
contains two long and two short stamens. But in many exceptional plants
of this family, _e.g._ in different species of sage, and in the
rosemary, only one pair of stamens is developed; the other pair is more
or less imperfect, or has quite disappeared. Sometimes stamens exist,
but without the anthers, so that they are utterly useless. Less
frequently the rudiment or imperfect remnant of a fifth stamen is found,
physiologically (for the functions of life) quite useless, but
morphologically (for the knowledge of the form and of the natural
relationship) a most valuable organ. In my “General Morphology of
Organisms,”(4) in the chapter on “Purposelessness, or Dysteleology,” I
have given a great number of other examples (Gen. Morph. ii. 226).
No biological phenomenon has perhaps ever placed zoologists or botanists
in greater embarrassment than these rudimentary or abortive organs. They
are instruments without employment, parts of the body which exist
without performing any service—adapted for a purpose, but without in
reality fulfilling that purpose. When we consider the attempts which the
earlier naturalists have made in order to explain this mystery, we can
scarcely help smiling at the strange ideas to which they were led. Being
unable to find a true explanation, they came, for example, to the
conclusion that the Creator had placed these organs there “for the sake
of symmetry,” or they believed that it had appeared unwise and
unsuitable to the Creator (seeing that their nearest kin did possess
such organs) that these organs should be completely wanting in
creatures, where they are incapable of performing a function, and where
it cannot be otherwise from the special mode of life. In compensation
for the non-existing function, he had at least furnished them with the
outward but empty form; nearly in the same manner as civil officers, in
uniform, are furnished with an innocent sword, which is never drawn from
the scabbard. I scarcely believe, however, that any of my readers will
be content with such an explanation.
Now, it is precisely this widely spread and mysterious phenomenon of
rudimentary organs, in regard to which all other attempts at explanation
fail, which is perfectly explained, and indeed in the simplest and
clearest way, by Darwin’s _Theory of Inheritance_ and _Adaptation_. We
can trace the important laws of inheritance and adaptation in the
domestic animals which we breed, and the plants which we cultivate; and
a series of such laws of inheritance have already been established.
Without going further into this at present, I will only remark that some
of them perfectly explain, in a mechanical way, the coming into
existence of rudimentary organs, so that we must look upon the
appearance of such structures as an entirely natural process, arising
from the _disuse of the organs_.
By _adaptation_ to special conditions of life, the formerly active and
really working organs have gradually ceased to be used or employed. In
consequence of their not being exercised they have become more and more
imperfect, but in spite of this have always been handed down from one
generation to another by _inheritance_, until at last they vanish
partially or entirely. Now, if we admit that all the vertebrate animals
mentioned above are derived from one common ancestor, possessing two
seeing eyes and two well developed pairs of legs, the different stages
of suppression and degeneration of these organs are easily accounted for
in such of the descendants as could no longer use them. In like manner
the various stages of suppression of the stamens, originally existing to
the number of five (in the flower-bud), among the Labiatæ is explained,
if we admit that all the plants of this family sprung from one common
ancestor, provided with five stamens.
I have here spoken somewhat fully of the phenomena of rudimentary
organs, because they are of the utmost general importance, and because
they lead us to the great, general, and fundamental questions in
philosophy and natural science, for the solution of which the Theory of
Descent has now become the indispensable guide. As soon, in fact, as,
according to this theory, we acknowledge the exclusive activity of
physico-chemical causes in living (organic) bodies, as well as in
so-called inanimate (inorganic) nature, we concede exclusive dominion to
that view of the universe, which we may designate as the _mechanical_,
and which is opposed to the _teleological_ conception. If we compare
all the ideas of the universe prevalent among different nations at
different times, we can divide them all into two sharply contrasted
groups—a _causal_ or _mechanical_, and a _teleological_ or
_vitalistic_. The latter has prevailed generally in Biology until now,
and accordingly the animal and vegetable kingdoms have been considered
as the products of a creative power, acting for a definite purpose. In
the contemplation of every organism the unavoidable conviction seemed to
press itself upon us, that such a wonderful machine, so complicated an
apparatus for motion as exists in the organism, could only be produced
by a power analogous to, but infinitely more perfect than, the power of
man in the construction of his machines.
However sublime the former idea of a Creator, and his creative power,
may have been; however much it may be attempted to divest it of all
human analogy, yet in the end this analogy still remains unavoidable and
necessary in the teleological conception of nature. In reality the
Creator must himself be conceived of as an organism, that is, as a being
who, analogous to man, even though in an infinitely more perfect form,
reflects on his constructive power, lays down a plan of his mechanisms,
and then, by the application of suitable materials, makes them answer
their purpose. Such conceptions necessarily suffer from the fundamental
error of _anthropomorphism_, or man-likening. In such a view, however
exalted the Creator may be imagined, we assign to him the human
attributes of designing a plan, and therefrom suitably constructing the
organism. This is, in fact, quite clearly expressed in that view which
is most sharply opposed to Darwin’s theory, and which has found among
naturalists its most distinguished representative in Agassiz. His
celebrated work, “An Essay on Classification,”(5) which is entirely
opposed to Darwin’s, and appeared almost at the same time, has
elaborated quite consistently, and to the utmost extent, these
anthropomorphic conceptions of the Creator.
I maintain with regard to the much-talked-of “purpose in nature,” that
it really has no existence but for those persons who observe phenomena
in animals and plants in the most superficial manner. Without going more
deeply into the matter, we can see at once that the rudimentary organs
are a formidable obstacle to this theory. And, indeed, everyone who
makes a really close study of the organization and mode of life of the
various animals and plants, and becomes familiar with the reciprocity or
interaction of the phenomena of life, and the so-called “economy of
nature,” must necessarily come to the conclusion that this
“purposiveness” no more exists than the much-talked-of “beneficence” of
the Creator. These optimistic views have, unfortunately, as little real
foundation as the favourite phrase, the “moral order of the universe,”
which is illustrated in an ironical way by the history of all nations.
The dominion of the “moral” popes, and their pious inquisition, in the
mediæval times, is not less significant of this than the present
prevailing militarism, with its “moral” apparatus of needle-guns and
other refined instruments of murder.
If we contemplate the common life and the mutual relations between
plants and animals (man included), we shall find everywhere, and at all
times, the very opposite of that kindly and peaceful social life which
the goodness of the Creator ought to have prepared for his creatures—we
shall rather find everywhere a pitiless, most embittered _Struggle of
All against All_. Nowhere in nature, no matter where we turn our eyes,
does that idyllic peace, celebrated by the poets, exist; we find
everywhere a struggle and a striving to annihilate neighbours and
competitors. Passion and selfishness—conscious or unconscious—is
everywhere the motive force of life. The well-known words of the German
poet—
“Die Welt ist vollkommen überall
Wo der Mensch nicht hinkommt mit seiner Qual.”[1]
are beautiful, but, unfortunately, not true. Man in this respect
certainly forms no exception to the rest of the animal world. The
remarks which we shall have to make on the theory of “Struggle for
Existence” will sufficiently justify this assertion. It is, in fact,
Darwin who has placed this important point, in its high and general
significance, very clearly before our eyes, and the chapter in his
theory which he himself calls “Struggle for Existence” is one of the
most important parts of it.
Whilst, then, we emphatically oppose the vital or teleological view of
animate nature which presents animal and vegetable forms as the
productions of a kind Creator, acting for a definite purpose, or of a
creative, natural force acting for a definite purpose, we must, on the
other hand, decidedly adopt that view of the universe which is called
the _mechanical_ or _causal_. It may also be called the _monistic_, or
_single-principle_ theory, as opposed to the _twofold principle_, or
_dualistic_ theory, which is necessarily implied in the teleological
conception of the universe. The mechanical view of nature has for many
years been so firmly established in certain domains of natural science,
that it is here unnecessary to say much about it. It no longer occurs to
physicists, chemists, mineralogists, or astronomers, to seek to find in
the phenomena which continually appear before them in their scientific
domain the action of a Creator acting for a definite purpose. They
universally, and without hesitation, look upon the phenomena which
appear in their different departments of study as the necessary and
invariable effects of physical and chemical forces which are inherent in
matter. Thus far their view is purely _materialistic_, in a certain
sense of that “word of many meanings.”
When a physicist traces the phenomena of motion in electricity or
magnetism, the fall of a heavy body, or the undulations in the waves of
light, he never, in the whole course of his research, thinks of looking
for the interference of a supernatural power. In this respect, Biology,
as the science of so-called “_animated_” natural bodies, was formerly
placed in sharp opposition to the above-mentioned inorganic natural
sciences (Anorganology). It is true modern Physiology, the science of
the phenomena of motion in animals and plants, has completely adopted
the mechanical view; but Morphology, the science of the forms of animals
and plants, has not been affected at all by it. Morphologists, in spite
of the position of physiology, have continued, as before, in opposition
to the mechanical view of functions, to look upon the forms of animals
and plants as something which cannot be at all explained mechanically,
but which must owe its origin necessarily to a higher, supernatural
creative power, acting for a definite purpose.
In this general view it is quite indifferent whether the creative power
be worshipped as a personal god, or whether it be termed the power of
life (vis vitalis), or final cause (causa finalis). In any case, to
express it in one word, its supporters have recourse to a _miracle_ for
an explanation. They throw themselves into the arms of a poetic faith,
which as such can have no value in the domain of scientific knowledge.
All that was done before Darwin, to establish a natural mechanical
conception of the origin of animals and plants, has been in vain, and
until his time no theory gained a general recognition. Darwin’s theory
first succeeded in doing this, and thus has rendered an immense service.
For the idea of the _unity of organic and inorganic nature_ is now
firmly established; and that branch of natural science which had longest
and most obstinately opposed mechanical conception and explanation,
viz., the science of the structure of animate forms, is launched on to
identically the same road towards perfection as that along which all the
rest of the natural sciences are travelling. The unity of _all_ natural
phenomena is by Darwin’s theory finally established.
This unity of all nature, the animating of all matter, the
inseparability of mental power and corporeal substance, Goethe has
asserted in the words: “Matter can never exist and be active without
mind, nor can mind without matter.” These first principles of the
mechanical conception of the universe have been taught by the great
monistic philosophers of all ages. Even Democritus of Abdera, the
immortal founder of the Atomic theory, clearly expressed them about 500
years before Christ; but the great Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno, did
so even more explicitly. For this he was burnt at the stake, by the
Christian inquisition in Rome, on the 17th of Feb., 1600, on the same
day on which, 36 years before, Galileo, his great fellow-countryman and
fellow-worker, was born. Such men, who live and die for a great idea,
are usually stigmatized as “materialists”; but their opponents, whose
arguments were torture and the stake, are praised as “spiritualists.”
By the Theory of Descent we are for the first time enabled to conceive
of the unity of nature in such a manner that a mechanico-causal
explanation of even the most intricate organic phenomena, for example,
the origin and structure of the organs of sense, is no more difficult
(in a general way) than is the mechanical explanation of any physical
process; as, for example, earthquakes, the courses of the wind, or the
currents of the ocean. We thus arrive at the extremely important
conviction that _all natural bodies_ which are known to us are _equally
animated_, that the distinction which has been made between animate and
inanimate bodies does _not_ exist. When a stone is thrown into the air,
and falls to earth according to definite laws, or when in a solution of
salt a crystal is formed, the phenomenon is neither more nor less a
mechanical manifestation of life than the growth and flowering of
plants, than the propagation of animals or the activity of their senses,
than the perception or the formation of thought in man. This final
triumph of the monistic conception of nature constitutes the highest and
most general merit of the Theory of Descent, as reformed by Darwin.