Produced by Bryan Ness, Jamie Atiga and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.ne
_AT THE DEATHBED OF DARWINISM_
A SERIES OF PAPERS
By
E. DENNERT, Ph.D.
Authorized Translation
By E. V. O'HARRA and JOHN H. PESCHGES
1904
GERMAN LITERARY BOARD
Burlington, Iowa
Copyright 1904
By R. NEUMANN
_CONTENTS_
PREFACE 9
INTRODUCTION 27
CHAPTER I.--The Return to Wigand--The Botanist, Julius von
Sachs--The Vienna Zoologist, Dr. Schneider 35
CHAPTER II.--Professor Goethe on "The Present Status of
Darwinism"--Explains the Reluctance of certain men of
Science to Discard Darwinism 41
CHAPTER III.--Professor Korchinsky Rejects Darwinism--His
Theory of Heterogenesis--Professor Haberlandt of
Graz--Demonstration of a "Vital Force"--Its Nature--The
Sudden Origination of a New Organ--Importance of the
Experiment. 49
CHAPTER IV.--Testimony of a Palaeontologist, Professor
Steinmann--On Haeckel's Family Trees--The Principle of
Multiple Origin--Extinction of the Saurians--"Darwinism Not
the Alpha and Omega of the Doctrine of Descent"--Steinmann's
Conclusions 60
CHAPTER V.--Eimer's Theory of Organic Growth--Definite Lines
of Development--Rejects Darwin's Theory of Fluctuating
Variations--Opposes Weismann--Repudiates Darwinian
"Mimicry"--Discards the "Romantic" Hypothesis of Sexual
Selection--"Transmutation is a Physiological Process, a
Phyletic Growth" 69
CHAPTER VI.--Admissions of a Darwinian--Professor von
Wagner's Explanation of the Decay of Darwinism--Darwinism
Rejects the Inductive Method, Hence Unscientific--Wagner's
Contradictory Assertions 90
CHAPTER VII.--Haeckel's Latest Production--His Extreme
Modesty--Reception of the Weltraetsel--Schmidt's
Apologia--The Romanes Incident--Men of Science Who Convicted
Haeckel of Deliberate Fraud 104
CHAPTER VIII.--Grottewitz Writes on "Darwinian Myths"--Darwinism
Incapable of Scientific Proof--"The Principle of Gradual
Development Certainly Untenable"--"Darwin's Theory of
"Chance" a Myth" 118
CHAPTER IX.--Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen--Doctrine of
Descent Not Substantiated--Missing Links--"Collapse of Haeckel's
Theory"--Descent Hypothesis "Antiquated"--Fleischmann Formerly
a Darwinian--Haeckel's Disreputable Methods of Defense 124
CHAPTER X.--Hertwig, the Berlin Anatomist, Protests Against
the Materialistic View of Life"--No Empiric Proof of
Darwinism--"The Impotence of Natural Selection"--Rejects
Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" 137
CONCLUSION.--Darwinism Abandoned by Men of Science--Supplanted
by a Theory in Harmony With Theistic Principles 146
PREFACE.
The general tendency of recent scientific literature dealing with the
problem of organic evolution may fairly be characterized as distinctly
and prevailingly unfavorable to the Darwinian theory of Natural
Selection. In the series of chapters herewith offered for the first
time to English readers, Dr. Dennert has brought together testimonies
which leave no room for doubt about the decadence of the Darwinian
theory in the highest scientific circles in Germany. And outside of
Germany the same sentiment is shared generally by the leaders of
scientific thought. That the popularizers of evolutionary conceptions
have any anti-Darwinian tendencies cannot, of course, be for a moment
maintained. For who would undertake to popularize what is not novel or
striking? But a study of the best scientific literature reveals the
fact that the attitude assumed by one of our foremost American
zoologists, Professor Thomas Hunt Morgan, in his recent work on
"Evolution and Adaptation," is far more general among the leading men
of science than is popularly supposed. Professor Morgan's position may
be stated thus: He adheres to the general theory of Descent, i.e., he
believes the simplest explanation which has yet been offered of the
structural _similarities_ between species within the same group,
is the hypothesis of a common descent from a parent species. But he
emphatically rejects the notion--and this is the quintessence of
Darwinism--that the _dissimilarities_ between species have been
brought about by the purely mechanical agency of natural selection.
To find out what, precisely, Darwin meant by the term "natural
selection" let us turn for a moment, to his great work, _The Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In the second chapter of
that work, Darwin observes that small "fortuitous" variations in
individual organisms, though of small interest to the systematist, are
of the "highest importance" for his theory, since these minute
variations often confer on the possessor of them, some advantage over
his fellows in the quest for the necessaries of life. Thus these chance
individual variations become the "first steps" towards slight
varieties, which, in turn, lead to sub-species, and, finally, to
species. Varieties, in fact, are "incipient species." Hence, small
"fortuitous" fluctuating, individual variations--i.e., those which
chance to occur without predetermined direction--are the "first-steps"
in the origin of species. This is the first element in the Darwinian
theory.
In the third chapter of the same work we read: "It has been seen in the
last chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is
some individual variability. * * * But the mere existence of individual
variability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as
a _foundation_ of the work, helps us but little in understanding
how species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations
of one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions
of life, and of one organic being to another being, been perfected?
* * *" Again it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have
called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and
distinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other
far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups
of species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise?
All of these results follow from the _struggle for life_. Owing to
this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause
proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a
species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings,
and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation
of such individuals and will generally be inherited by the offspring.
The offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving, for of
the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a
small number can survive. I have called this principle by which each
slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term, "natural
selection." Mr. Darwin adds that his meaning would be more accurately
expressed by a phrase of Mr. Spencer's coinage, "Survival of the
Fittest."
It may be observed that neither "natural selection" nor "survival of
the fittest" gives very accurate expression to the idea which Darwin
seems to wish to convey. Natural selection is at best a metaphorical
description of a process, and "survival of the fittest" describes the
result of that process. Nor shall we find the moving principle of
evolution in individual variability unless we choose to regard chance
as an efficient agency. Consequently, the only efficient principle
conceivably connected with the process is the "struggle for existence;"
and even this has only a purely negative function in the origination of
species or of adaptations. For, the "surviving fittest" owe nothing
more to the struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans owe to
the death-dealing bullets which did _not_ hit them. Mr. Darwin has,
however, obviated all difficulty regarding precision of terms by the
remark that he intended to use his most important term, "struggle for
existence" in "a large and metaphorical sense."
We have now seen the second element of Darwinism, namely, the "struggle
for life." The theory of natural selection, then, postulates the
accumulation of minute "fortuitions" individual modifications, which
are useful to the possessor of them, by means of a struggle for life of
such a sanguinary nature and of such enormous proportions as to result
in the destruction of the overwhelming majority of adult individuals.
These are the correlative factors in the process of natural selection.
In view of the popular identification of Darwinism with the doctrine of
evolution, on the one hand, and with the theory of struggle for life,
on the other hand, it is necessary to insist on the Darwinian
conception of small, fluctuating, useful variations as the
"first-steps" in the evolutionary process. For, this conception
distinguishes Darwinism from the more recent evolutionary theory, e.g.,
of De Vries who rejects the notion that species have originated by the
accumulation of fluctuating variations; and it is quite as essential to
the Darwinian theory of natural selection as is the "struggle for
life." It is, in fact, an integral element in the selection theory.
The attitude of science towards Darwinism may, therefore, be
conveniently summarized in its answer to the following questions:
1. Is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among mature
forms, as Darwin postulates, actually occurs?
2. Can the origin of adaptive structures be explained on the ground of
their _utility_ in this struggle, i.e., is it certain or even
probable that the organism would have perished, had it lacked the
particular adaptation in its present degree of perfection? On the
contrary, is there not convincing proof that many, and presumably most,
adaptations cannot be thus accounted for?
The above questions are concerned with "the struggle for life." Those
which follow have to do with the problem of variations.
3. Is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by the
accumulation of fluctuating individual variations?
4. Does the evidence of the geological record--which, as Huxley
observed, is the only direct evidence that can be had in the question
of evolution--does this evidence tell for or against the origin of
existing species from earlier ones by means of minute gradual
modifications?
We must be content here with the briefest outline of the reply of
science to these inquiries.
1. Darwin invites his readers to "keep steadily in mind that each
organic being is striving to increase in geometrical ratio." If this
tendency were to continue unchecked, the progeny of living beings would
soon be unable to find standing room. Indeed, the very bacteria would
quickly convert every vestige of organic matter on earth into their own
substance. For has not Cohn estimated that the offspring of a single
bacterium, at its ordinary rate of increase under favorable conditions,
would in three days amount to 4,772 billions of individuals with an
aggregate weight of seven thousand five hundred tons? And the
19,000,000 elephants which, according to Darwin, should to-day
perpetuate the lives of each pair that mated in the twelfth
century--surely these would be a "magna pars" in the sanguinary
contest. When the imagination views these and similar figures, and
places in contrast to this multitude of living beings, the limited
supply of nourishment, the comparison of nature with a huge
slaughterhouse seems tame enough. But reason, not imagination, as
Darwin observes more than once, should be our guide in a scientific
inquiry.
It is observed on careful reflection that Darwin's theory is endangered
by an extremely large disturbing element, viz., accidental destruction.
Under this term we include all the destruction of life which occurs in
utter indifference to the presence or absence of any individual
variations from the parent form. Indeed, the greatest destruction takes
place among immature forms before any variation from the parent stock
is discernible at all. In this connection we may instance the vast
amount of eggs and seeds destroyed annually irrespective of any
adaptive advantage that would be possessed by the matured form. And the
countless forms in every stage of individual development which meet
destruction through "accidental causes which would not be in the least
degree mitigated by certain changes of structure or of constitution
which would otherwise be beneficial to the species." This difficulty,
Darwin himself recognized. But he was of opinion that if even
"one-hundredth or one-thousandth part" of organic beings escaped this
fortuitous destruction, there would supervene among the survivors a
struggle for life sufficiently destructive to satisfy his theory. This
suggestion, however, fails to meet the difficulty. For, as Professor
Morgan points out, Darwin assumes "that a second competition takes
place after the first destruction of individuals has occurred, and this
presupposes that more individuals reach maturity than there is room for
in the economy of nature." It presupposes that the vast majority of
forms that survive accidental destruction, succumb in the second
struggle for life in which the determining factor is some slight
individual variation, e.g., a little longer neck in the case of the
giraffe, or a wing shorter than usual in the case of an insect on an
island. The whole theory of struggle, as formulated by Darwin, is,
therefore, a violent assumption. Men of science now recognize that
"egoism and struggle play a very subordinate part in organic
development, in comparison with co-operation and social action." What,
indeed, but a surrender of the paramountcy of struggle for life, is
Huxley's celebrated Romanes lecture in which he supplants the cosmic
process by the ethical? The French free-thinker, Charles Robin, gave
expression to the verdict of exact science when he declared: "Darwinism
is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of probabilities without proof,
and of attractive explanations without demonstration."
2. The hopeless inadequacy of the struggle for life to account for
adaptive structures has been dealt with at considerable length by
Professor Morgan in the concluding chapters of the work already
mentioned. We cannot here follow him in his study of the various kinds
of adaptations, e.g., form and symmetry, mutual adaptation of colonial
forms, protective coloration, organs of extreme perfection, tropisms
and instincts, etc., in regard to the origin of each of which he is
forced to abandon the Darwinian theory. It will suffice to call
attention to his conclusions concerning the phenomena of regeneration
of organs. By his research in this special field Professor Morgan has
won international recognition among men of science. It was while
prosecuting his studies in this field that he became impressed with
the utter bankruptcy of the theory of natural selection which
Darwinians put forward to explain the acquisition by organisms of this
most useful power of regeneration. It is not difficult to show that
regeneration could not in many cases, and presumably in none, have
been acquired through natural selection (p. 379). If an earth worm
(_allolobophora foctida_) be cut in two in the middle, the posterior
piece regenerates at its anterior cut end, not a head but a tail. "Not
by the widest stretch of the imagination can such a result be accounted
for on the selection theory." Quite the reverse case presents itself
in certain planarians. If the head of _planaria lugubris_ is cut
off just behind the eyes, there develops at the cut surface of the
head-piece another head turned in the opposite direction. "These and
other reasons," concludes Professor Morgan (p. 381), "indicate with
certainty that regeneration cannot be explained by the theory of
natural selection."
The ingenuity of the Darwinian imagination, however, will hardly fail
to assign some reason why two heads are more useful than one in the
above instance, and thus reconcile the phenomenon with Darwinism. For,
according to Professor Morgan "to imagine that a particular organ is
useful to its possessor and to account for its origin because of the
imagined benefit conferred, is the general procedure of the followers
of the Darwinian school." "Personal conviction, mere possibility,"
writes Quatrefages, "are offered as proofs, or at least as arguments
in favor of the theory." "The realms of fancy are boundless," is
Blanchard's significant comment on Darwin's explanation of the
blindness of the mole. "On this class of speculation," says Bateson in
his "Materials for the Study of Variation," referring to Darwinian
speculation as to the beneficial or detrimental nature of variations,
"on this class of speculation the only limitations are those of the
ingenuity of the author." The general form of Darwin's argument,
declared the writer of a celebrated article in the North British
Review, is as follows: "All these things may have been, therefore my
theory is possible; and since my theory is a possible one, all those
hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable."
3. We pass now to the question of the possibility of building up a new
species by the accumulation of chance individual variations. That
species ever originate in this way is denied by the advocates of the
evolutionary theory which is now superseding Darwinism. Typical of the
new school is the botanist Hugo De Vries of Amsterdam. The
"first-steps" in the origin of new species according to De Vries are
not fluctuating individual variations, but mutations, i.e., definite
and permanent modifications. According to the mutation theory a new
species arises from the parent species, not gradually but suddenly. It
appears suddenly "without visible preparation and without transitional
steps." The wide acceptance with which this theory is meeting must be
attributed to the fact that men of science no longer believe in the
origin of species by the accumulation of slight fluctuating
modifications. To quote the words of De Vries, "Fluctuating variation
cannot overstep the limits of the species, even after the most
prolonged selection--still less can it lead to the production of new,
permanent characters." It has been the wont of Darwinians to base their
speculations on the assumption that "an inconceivably long time" could
effect almost anything in the matter of specific transformations. But
the evidence which has been amassed during the past forty years leaves
no doubt that there is a limit to individual variability which neither
time nor skill avail to remove. As M. Blanchard asserts in his work,
_La vie des etres animes_ (p. 102), "All investigation and observation
make it clear that, while the variability of creatures in a state of
nature displays itself in very different degrees, yet, in its most
astonishing manifestations, it remains confined within a circle beyond
which it cannot pass."
It is interesting to observe how writers of the Darwinian school
attempt to explain the origin of articulate language as a gradual
development of animal sounds. "It does not," observes Darwin, "appear
altogether incredible that some unusually wise ape-like animal should
have thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey, so as to
indicate to his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected danger. And
this would have been a first step in the formation of a language." But
what a tremendous step! An ape-like animal that "thought" of imitating
a beast must certainly have been "unusually wise." In bridging the
chasm which rational speech interposes between man and the brute
creation, the Darwinian is forced to assume that the whole essential
modification is included in the first step. Then he conceals the
assumption by parcelling out the accidental modification in a supposed
series of transitional stages. He endeavors to veil his inability to
explain the first step, as Chevalier Bunsen remarked, by the easy but
fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to explain
the gradual development of animals into men; as if millions of years
could supply the want of an agent necessary for the first movement, for
the first step in the line of progress. "How can speech, the expression
of thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of years, out of
unarticulated sounds which express feelings of pleasure, pain, and
appetite? The common-sense of mankind will always shrink from such
theories."
4. The hopes and fears of Darwinians have rightly been centered on the
history of organic development as outlined in the geological record. It
has been pointed out repeatedly by the foremost men of science that if
the theory of genetic descent with the accumulation of small variations
be the true account of the origin of species, a complete record of the
ancestry of any existing species would reveal no distinction of species
and genera. Between any two well-defined species, if one be derived
from the other, there must be countless transition forms. But
palaeontology fails to support the theory of evolution by minute
variations. Darwinism has been shattered on the geologic rocks. "The
complete absence of intermediate forms," says Mr. Carruthers, "and the
sudden and contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely
separated groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
countenance from the plant record of these ancient rocks. The whole
evidence is against evolution (i.e., by minute modification) and there
is none for it." (cf. _History of Plant Life and its Bearing on
Theory of Evolution_, 1898). Similar testimony regarding the animal
kingdom is borne by Mr. Mivart in the following carefully worded
statement: "The mass of palaeontological evidence is indeed
overwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification." "The Darwinian
theory," declared Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, recently, "has not
a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the
result of scientific research, but purely the product of the
imagination."
On one occasion Huxley expressed his conviction that the pedigree of
the horse as revealed in the geological record furnished demonstrative
evidence for the theory of evolution. The question has been entered
into in detail by Professor Fleischmann in his work, _Die
Descendenstheorie_. In this book the Erlangen professor makes great
capital out of the "trot-horse" (Paradepferd) of Huxley and Haeckel;
and as regards the evolutionary theory, easily claims a verdict of
"not proven." In this connection the moderate statement of Professor
Morgan is noteworthy: "When he (Fleischmann) says there is no absolute
proof that the common plan of structure must be the result of blood
relationship, he is not bringing a fatal argument against the theory of
descent, for no one but an enthusiast sees anything more in the
explanation than a very probable theory that appears to account for the
facts. To demand an absolute proof is to ask for more than any
reasonable advocate of the descent theory claims for it." (Professor
Morgan, as we have already seen, rejects Darwinism, and inclines to the
mutation theory of De Vries.) The vast majority of Darwinians must,
therefore, be classed as "enthusiasts" who are not "reasonable
advocates of the descent theory." For has not Professor Marsh told his
readers that "to doubt evolution is to doubt science?" And similar
assertions have been so frequently made and reiterated by Darwinians
that the claim that Darwinism has become a dogma contains, as Professor
Morgan notes, more truth than the adherents of that school find
pleasant to hear.
More interesting, however, than Huxley's geological pedigree of the
horse is Haeckel's geological pedigree of man. One who reads Haeckel's
_Natural History of Creation_ can hardly escape the impression that
the author had actually seen specimens of each of the twenty-one
ancestral forms of which his pedigree of man is composed. Such,
however, was not the case. Quatrefages, speaking of this wonderful
genealogical tree which Haeckel has drawn up with such scientific
accuracy of description, observes: "The first thing to remark is that
_not one_ of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been
seen, either living or in fossil. Their existence is based entirely
upon theory." (_Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. _p._ 76). "Man's pedigree as
drawn up by Haeckel," says the distinguished savant, Du Bois-Reymond,
"is worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical
historians."
In constructing his genealogies Haeckel has frequent recourse to his
celebrated "Law of Biogenesis." The "Law of Biogenesis" which is the
dignified title Haeckel has given to the discredited recapitulation
theory, asserts that the embryological development of the individual
(ontogeny), is a brief recapitulation, a summing up, of the stages
through which the species passed in the course of its evolution in the
geologic past, (phylogeny). Ontogeny is a brief recapitulation of
phylogeny. This, says Haeckel, is what the "fundamental Law of
Biogenesis" teaches us. (The reader of Haeckel and other Darwinians
will frequently find laws put forward to establish facts: whereas other
men of science prefer to have facts establish laws). When, therefore,
as Quatrefages remarks, the transition between the types which Haeckel
has incorporated into his genealogical tree, appears too abrupt, he
often betakes himself to ontogeny and describes the embryo in the
corresponding interval of development. This description he inserts in
his genealogical mosaic, by virtue of the "Law of Biogenesis."
Many theories have been constructed to explain the phenomena of
embryological development. Of these the simplest and least mystical is
that of His in the great classic work on embryology, "Unsere
Koerperform." His tells us: "In the entire series of forms which a
developing organism runs through, each form is the necessary antecedent
step of the following. If the embryo is to reach the complicated
end-form, it must pass, step by step, through the simpler ones. Each
step of the series is the physiological consequence of the preceding
stage, and the necessary condition for the following." But whatever
theory be accepted by men of science, it is certainly not that proposed
by Haeckel. Carl Vogt after giving Haeckel's statement of the "Law of
Biogenesis" wrote: "This law which I long held as well-founded, is
absolutely and radically false." Even Oskar Hertwig, perhaps the best
known of Haeckel's former pupils, finds it necessary to change
Haeckel's expression of the biogenetic law so that "a contradiction
contained in it may be removed." Professor Morgan, finally, rejects
Haeckel's boasted "Law of Biogenesis" as "_in principle, false_."
And he furthermore seems to imply that Fleischmann merits the reproach
of men of science, for wasting his time in confuting "the antiquated
and generally exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel."
"Antiquated and generally exaggerated views." Such is the comment of
science on Haeckel's boast that Darwin's pre-eminent service to science
consisted in pointing out how purposive adaptations may be produced by
natural selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they
may be produced by artificial selection and human design. And yet the
latest and least worthy production from the pen of this Darwinian
philosopher, _The Riddle of the Universe_, is being scattered
broad-cast by the anti-Christian press, in the name and guise of
_popular_ science. It is therein that the evil consists. For the
discerning reader sees in the book itself, its own best refutation. The
pretensions of Haeckel's "consistent and monistic theory of the eternal
cosmogenetic process" are best met by pointing to the fact that its
most highly accredited and notorious representative has given to the
world in exposition and defense of pure Darwinian philosophy, a work,
which, for boldness of assertion, meagerness of proof, inconsequence of
argument, inconsistency in fundamental principles and disregard for
facts which tell against the author's theory, has certainly no equal in
contemporary literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of Professor
Paulsen, the book "fairly drips with superficiality" (von Seichtigkeit
triefen). If the man of science is to be justified, as Huxley
suggested, not by faith but by verification, Haeckel and his docile
Darwinian disciples have good reason to tremble for their scientific
salvation.
EDWIN V. O'HARA.
St. Paul, Minn.
_INTRODUCTION._
During the last few years I have published under this title short
articles dealing with the present status of Darwinism. In view of the
kind reception which has been accorded to these articles by the reading
public I have thought it well to bring them together in pamphlet form.
Indeed, the Darwinian movement and its present status are eminently
deserving of consideration, especially on the part of those before whom
Darwinism has hitherto always been held up triumphantly as a scientific
disproof of the very foundations of the Christian faith.
By way of introduction and explanation some general preliminary remarks
may not be amiss here. Previous to twenty or thirty years ago, it was
justifiable to identify Darwinism with the doctrine of Descent, for at
that time Darwinism was the only doctrine of Descent which could claim
any general recognition. Consequently, one who was an adherent of the
doctrine of Descent was also a Darwinian. Those to whom this did not
apply were so few as to be easily counted. The dispute then hinged
primarily on Darwinism; hence, for those who did not admit the truth of
that theory, the doctrine of Descent was for the most part also a myth.
I say, for the most part; for there were already even at that time a
few clear-sighted naturalists (Wigand, Naegeli, Koelliker and others)
who saw plainly the residue of truth that would result from the
discussion. But to the overwhelming majority, the alternatives seemed
to be: Either Darwinism or no evolution at all. Today, however, the
state of things is considerably altered. The doctrine of Descent is
clearly and definitely distinguished from Darwinism at least by the
majority of naturalists. It is therefore of the utmost importance that
this luminous distinction should likewise become recognized in lay
circles.
My object in these pages is to show that Darwinism will soon be a thing
of the past, a matter of history; that we even now stand at its
death-bed, while its friends are solicitous only to secure for it a
decent burial.
Out of the chaos of controversy which has obtained during the last four
decades there has emerged an element of truth--for there lurks a germ
of truth in most errors--which has gained almost universal recognition
among contemporary men of science, namely, the doctrine of Descent. The
fact that living organisms form an ascending series from the less
perfect to the more perfect; the further fact that they also form a
series according as they display more or less homology of structure and
are formed according to similar types; and, lastly, that the fossil
remains of organisms found in the various strata of the earth's surface
likewise represent an ascending series from the simple to the more
complex--these three facts suggested to naturalists the thought that
living organisms were not always as we find them to-day, but that the
more perfect had developed from simpler forms through a series of
modifications. These thoughts were at first advanced with some
hesitation, and were confined to narrow circles. They received,
however, material support when, during the fourth decade of the 19th
century the splendid discovery was made (by K. E. von Baer) that every
organism is slowly developed from a germ, and in the process of
development passes through temporary lower stages to a permanent higher
one. Even at that time many naturalists believed in a corresponding
development of the whole series of organisms, without of course being
able to form a clear conception of the process. Such was the state of
affairs when Darwin in the year 1859 published his principal work,
_The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In this
work for the first time an exhaustive attempt was made to sketch a
clear and completely detailed picture of the process of development.
Darwin started with the fact that breeders of animals and growers of
plants, having at their disposal a large number of varieties, always
diverging somewhat from each other, choose individuals possessing
characteristics which they desired to strengthen, and use only these
for procreation. In this manner the desired characteristic is gradually
made more prominent, and the breeder appears to have obtained a new
species. Similar conditions are supposed to prevail in Nature, only
that there is lacking the selecting hand of the breeder. Here the
so-called principle of Natural Selection holds automatic sway by means
of the Struggle for Existence. All the various forms of life are
warring for the means of subsistence, each striving to obtain for
itself the best nourishment, etc. In this struggle those organisms will
be victorious which possess the most favorable characteristics; all
others must succumb. Hence those only will survive which are best
adapted to their environment. But between those which survive, the
struggle begins anew, and when the favoring peculiarities become more
pronounced in some, (by chance, of course) these in turn win out. Thus
Nature gradually improves her various breeds through the continued
action of a self-regulating mechanism. Such are the main features of
Darwinism, its real kernel, about which of course,--and this is a proof
of its insufficiency,--from the very beginning a number of auxiliary
hypotheses attached themselves.
Darwin's theory sounds so clear and simple, and seems at first blush so
luminous that it is no wonder if many careful naturalists regarded it
as an incontrovertible truth. The warning voice of the more prudent men
of science was silenced by the loud enthusiasm of the younger
generation over the solution of the greatest of the world-problems: the
genesis of living beings had been brought to light, and--a thing which
admitted of no doubt--man as well as the brute creation was a product
of purely natural evolution. The doctrine which materialism had already
proclaimed with prophetic insight, had at length been irrefragably
established on a scientific basis: God, Soul and Immortality were
contemptuously relegated to the domain of nursery tales. What further
use was there for a God when, in addition to the Kant-Laplacian theory
of the origin of the planetary system, it had been discovered that
living organisms had likewise evolved spontaneously? How could man who
had sprung from the irrational brute possess a soul? And thus, finally,
disappeared the third delusion, the hope of immortality. For with death
the functions of the body simply cease, as also do those of the brain,
which people had foolishly believed to be something more than an
aggregation of atoms. The body dissolves into its constituent elements
and serves in its turn to build up other organisms: but as a human body
it all turns to dust nor 'leaves a wrack behind'. Thus Darwinism was
made the basis first for a materialistic, and then for a monistic, view
of the world, and hence came to be rigorously opposed to every form of
Theism. But since, at that time, Darwinism was the only theory of
evolution recognized by the world of science, the opposition of the
Christian world was directed not specifically against Darwinism, but
against the theory of evolution as such. The wheat was rooted up with
the tares.
I will not discuss here which of the two views concerning creation; the
origin of the world in one moment of time, or a gradual evolution of
the world and its potentialities, is the more worthy of the creative
power of God. Manifestly the greatness and magnificence of creation
will in no way be compromised by the concept of evolution. This, of
course, is simply my opinion. Any further statement would be out of
place here.
But what is the Darwinian position?
It is merely a special form of the evolutionary theory, one of the
various attempts to explain how the process of development actually
took place. Darwinism as understood in the following chapters possesses
the following characteristic traits:
(1) Evolution began and continues without the aid or intervention of a
Creator.
(2) In the production of Variations there is no definite law; Chance
reigns supreme.
(3) There is no indication of purpose or finality to be detected
anywhere in the evolutionary process.
(4) The working factor in evolution is Egoism, a war of each against
his fellows: this is the predominating principle which manifests itself
in Nature.
(5) In this struggle the strongest, fleetest and most cunning will
always prevail, (the Darwinian term "fittest" has been the innocent
source of a great deal of error).
(6) Man, whether you regard his body or his mind, is nothing but a
highly developed animal.
A careful examination of Darwinism shows that these are the necessary
presuppositions, or, if you will, the inevitable consequences of that
theory. To accept that theory is to repudiate the Christian view of the
world. The truth of the above propositions is utterly incompatible, not
only with any religious views, but with our civil and social principles
as well.
The most patent facts of man's moral life, however, cannot be explained
on any such hypothesis, and the logic of events has already shown that
Darwinism could never have won general acceptance but for the
incautious enthusiasm of youth which intoxicated the minds of the
rising generation of naturalists and incapacitated them for the
exercise of sober judgment. To show that there is among contemporary
men of science a healthy reaction against Darwinism is the object of
this treatise.
The reader may now ask, What, then, is your idea of evolution? It
certainly is easier to criticise than to do constructive work. An
honest study of nature, however, inevitably leads us to the conclusion
that the final solution of the problem is still far distant. Many a
stone has already been quarried for the future edifice of evolution by
unwearied research during the last four decades. But in opposition to
Darwinism it may, at the present time, be confidently asserted that any
future doctrine of evolution will have to be constructed on the
following basic principles:
(1) All evolution is characterized by finality; it proceeds according
to a definite plan, and tends to a definite end.
(2) Chance and disorder find no place in Nature; every stage of the
evolutionary process is the result of law-controlled factors.
(3) Egoism and struggle among living organisms are of very subordinate
importance in comparison with co-operation and social action.
(4) The soul of man is an independent substance, and entirely
unintelligible as a mere higher stage of development of animal
instinct.
A theory of evolution, however, resting on these principles cannot
dispense with a Creator and Conserver of the world and of life.
CHAPTER I.
"It was a happy day that people threw off the straight-jacket of logic
and the burdensome fetters of strict method, and mounting the
light-caparisoned steed of philosophic science, soared into the
empyrean, high above the laborious path of ordinary mortals. One may
not take offense if even the most sedate citizen, for the sake of a
change, occasionally kicks over the traces, provided only that he
returns in due time to his wonted course. And now in the domain of
Biology, one is led to think that the time has at length arrived for
putting an end to mad masquerade pranks and for returning without
reserve to serious and sober work, to find satisfaction therein." With
these words did the illustrious Wigand, twenty-five years ago, conclude
the preface to the third volume of his large classical work against
Darwinism. True, he did not at that time believe that the mad campaign
of Darwinism had already ended to its own detriment, but he always
predicted with the greatest confidence that the struggle would soon
terminate in victory for the anti-Darwinian camp. When Wigand closed
his eyes in death in 1896, he was able to bear with him the
consciousness that the era of Darwinism was approaching its end, and
that he had been in the right.
Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than
that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen
its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades
hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of
Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in
many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time
took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them
as the excitement attending some mad revel.
A justification of our hope that Wigand's warning prediction will
finally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact that to-day the younger
generation of naturalists is departing more and more from Darwinism. It
is a fact worthy of special mention that the opposition to Darwinism
to-day comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists, whereas thirty
years ago large numbers of zoologists from Jena associated themselves
with the Darwinian school, hoping to find there a full and satisfactory
solution for the profoundest enigmas of natural science.
The cause of this reaction is not far to seek. There was at the time a
whole group of enthusiastic Darwinians among the university professors,
Haeckel leading the van, who clung to that theory so tenaciously and
were so zealous in propagating it, that for a while it seemed
impossible for a young naturalist to be anything but a Darwinian. Then
the inevitable reaction gradually set in. Darwin himself died, the
Darwinians of the sixties and seventies lost their pristine ardor, and
many even went beyond Darwin. Above all, calm reflection took the place
of excited enthusiasm. As a result it has become more and more apparent
that the past forty years have brought to light nothing new that is of
any value to the cause of Darwinism. This significant fact has aroused
doubts as to whether after all Darwinism can really give a satisfactory
explanation of the genesis of organic forms.
The rising generation is now discovering what discerning scholars had
already recognized and stated a quarter of a century ago. They are also
returning to a study of the older opponents of Darwinism, especially of
Wigand. It is only now, many years after his death, that a tribute has
been paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately was
grudgingly withheld during his life. One day recently there was laid
before his monument in the Botanical Garden of Marburg a laurel-wreath
with the inscription: "To the great naturalist, philosopher and man."
It came from a young zoologist at Vienna who had thoroughly mastered
Wigand's great anti-Darwinian work, an intelligent investigator who had
set to work in the spirit of Wigand. Another talented zoologist, Hans
Driesch, dedicates to the memory of Wigand two books in rapid
succession and reprehends the contemporaries of that master of science
for ignoring him. O. Hammann abandons Darwinism for an internal
principle of development. W. Haacke openly disavows Darwinism; and even
at the convention of naturalists in 1897, L. Wilser was allowed to
assert without contradiction that, "anyone who has committed himself to
Darwinism can no longer be ranked as a naturalist."
These are all signs which clearly indicate a radical revolution, and
they are all the more significant since it is the younger generation,
which will soon take the lead, that thinks and speaks in this manner.
But it is none the less noteworthy that the younger naturalists are not
alone in this movement. Many of the older men of science are swelling
the current. We shall recall here only the greatest of those whom we
might mention in this connection.
Julius von Sachs, the most gifted and brilliant botanist of the last
century, who unfortunately is no longer among us, was in the sixties an
outspoken Darwinian, as is evident especially from his History of
Botany and from the first edition of his Handbook of Botany. Soon,
however, Sachs began to incline toward the position assumed by Naegeli;
and as early as 1877, Wigand, in the third volume of his great work,
expressed the hope that Sachs would withdraw still further from
Darwinism. As years went by, Sachs drifted more and more from his
earlier position, and Wigand was of opinion that to himself should be
ascribed the credit of bringing about the change. During his last years
Sachs had become bitterly opposed to Darwinism, and in his masterly
"Physiological Notes" he took a firm stand on the "internal factors of
evolution."
During recent years I had the pleasure of occasional correspondence
with Sachs. On the 16th of September, 1896, he wrote me: For more than
twenty years I have recognized that if we are to build up a strictly
scientific theory of organic structural processes, we must separate the
doctrine of Descent from Darwinism. It was with this intention that he
worked during the last years of his life and it is to be hoped that his
school will continue his researches with this aim in view.
The tendency among naturalists to return to Wigand is well exemplified
in an article contributed to the "Preussischen Jahrbuecher" for
January, 1897, by Dr. Karl Camillo Schneider, assistant at the
zoological Institute of the University of Vienna. This article which is
entitled The Origin of Species, pursues Wigand's train of thought
throughout, and whole sentences and even paragraphs are taken verbatim
from his main work. This, at all events, is a very instructive
indication of the present tendency which deserves prominence: and its
significance becomes more evident when we recall how the work of Wigand
was received by the non-christian press a quarter of a century ago. It
was either ridiculed or ignored. The two methods of treatment were
applied to his writings which are always readily employed when the
critic has nothing pertinent to say. It is interesting to note that
Darwin himself employed this method. Wigand once told me that he had
sent Darwin a copy of his work and had addressed a letter to him at the
same time merely stating that he had sent the book, making no reference
to the line of thought contained in it. Darwin answered immediately in
the kindest manner that he had not as yet received the book, but when
it arrived he would at once make a careful study of its contents.
Darwin did not write to him again, and when a new edition of his works
appeared, the work of Wigand, the most comprehensive answer to Darwin
ever written, was passed over without even a passing mention. Thus
Darwin completely ignored his keenest antagonist.
As has been said, the majority of those who wrote about Wigand
ridiculed him: very few regarded him seriously, and even these indulged
chiefly in personal recriminations. Thus matters stood twenty-five
years ago. Wigand's prediction passed unheeded. That a periodical not
having a specifically Christian circle of readers should now publish a
condemnation of Darwinism entirely in accordance with the views of
Wigand, is a fact which indicates a notable change of sentiment during
the intervening years. I should not be at all astonished if many who
sneered at Wigand twenty years ago, now read the article in the
Preussischen Jahrbuecher with entire approval. Ill-will towards Wigand
has not altogether disappeared even to-day. This is evident from the
fact that as yet Dr. Schneider does not venture to defend Wigand
publicly, nor to acknowledge him as his principal authority. We must be
content, however, if only, the truth will finally prevail.