Striking testimony relative to the present position of Darwinism is
borne by the Strasburg zoologist, Dr. Goette, who has won fame by his
invaluable labors as an historian of evolutionary theory. In the
"Umschau," No. 5, 1898, he discusses the "Present Status of Darwinism,"
and the conclusions he arrives at, are identical with mine. At the
outset Goette indicates the distinction between Darwinism and the
doctrine of Descent, and then points out that the distinguishing
features of the former consist not so much in the three facts of
Heredity, Variation, and Over-production, but rather in Selection,
Survival of the Fittest, and also in that mystical theory of
heredity--the doctrine of Pangenesis--which is peculiarly Darwinian.
Since this theory of Pangenesis has found no adherents, the question
may henceforth be restricted to the doctrine of natural selection. This
Goette very well observes.
He points, moreover, to the fact that the misgivings that were
entertained concerning the doctrine of natural selection on its first
appearance, were, on the whole, precisely the same as they are to-day;
only with this difference, that formerly they were disregarded by
naturalists whose clearness of vision was obscured by excessive
enthusiasm; whereas, to-day men have again returned to their sober
senses and lend their attention more readily to objections.
Goette recalls the fact that M. Wagner tried to supplement natural
selection with his "Law of Migration," and that later on, Romanes and
Gulick endeavored to supply the evident deficiencies in Darwin's
theory, by invoking other principles; and that even at that time,
Askenasy, Braun, and Naegeli--and more recently, the lately deceased
Eimer--insisted on the fact of definitely ordered variations, in
opposition to the theory of Selection.
Many naturalists recognize the difficulties but do not abandon the
theory of Selection, thinking that some supplementary principle would
suffice to make it acceptable: many others refuse to decide either for
or against Darwinism and maintain towards it an attitude of
indifference. The younger investigators, however, are utterly opposed
to it. "There can be no doubt that since its first appearance the
influence of Darwinism on men's minds has notably diminished, although
the theory has not been entirely discarded."--But the very fact that
the younger naturalists are hostile to it, makes it evident that
Darwinism has a still darker future in store for it: that sooner or
later it will come to possess a merely historical interest.
"The present position of Darwinism," says Goette, "is characterized
especially by the uncertainty of criticism which is unable to declare
definitely in favor of either side." Goette finds the chief cause of
this uncertainty in the fact "that men of science (even Darwin himself)
have widened the concept of selection as a means of originating new
species through the interaction of individuals in the same species, so
as to express the mutually antagonistic relations existing between
several such species." The latter alone is subject to experimental
verification, but it can only cause the isolation of existing forms and
is not a species-originating selection--with which alone we are here
concerned. This kind of selection can enfeeble the existing flora and
fauna, but cannot produce a new species. Selection productive of new
species "is not actually demonstrable; it is a purely theoretical
invention."
Goette next points out that the investigator is everywhere confronted
by definitely-directed variation: a fact which does not harmonize with
the theory of selection, nor, consequently with Darwinism. If some
scientists have not as yet accepted Eimer's presentation of this
doctrine, their action is most probably to be attributed to the fear
lest "they should have to accept not merely, variation according to
definite laws, but likewise a principle of finality and other causes
lying beyond the range of scientific investigation." The rejection of
the theory of selection often promotes, as Goette rightly observes, a
reactionary tendency towards _a priori_ explanations of phenomena
with which we are but slightly acquainted. "There are naturalists who
do not discard the theory of selection simply because it seems to
furnish a much-desired mechanical explanation of purposive adaptions"
(a momentous admission to which we shall have occasion to revert).
Others have broken entirely with selection and the principle of utility
and extend the idea of finality to the general capacity of organisms to
persist. Thus adaptation becomes a principle which transcends the
limits of natural science and pervades the whole domain of life. Goette
observes that Darwin spoke of useful, less useful and indifferent
organisms, by which he meant those adaptations destined for particular
vital functions which tend to make the organs more and more
specialized. Since the ability to live is threatened by this
specialization it cannot be purposive. This is not wholly true, because
the more specialized the individual organ becomes, the more perfect is
the whole organism which is composed of these specialized organs. The
functions of the individual organ may be restricted, but the power of
the entire organism is notably increased, according to the law of the
division of labor. Goette therefore has not sufficient grounds for
rejecting this expression. He considers that a real and permanent
purpose for the individual living forms is out of the question, but
that this purpose may be sought for in the development and history of
the collective life of nature. Definitely ordered variation, he thinks,
a scientific explanation of which is indeed yet forthcoming, will
explain adaptation equally as well as does selection. After what has
been said this statement of Goette must come as a surprise, for one
would think that according to his view definite variation explains
adaptations better than selection. Goette sums up his main conclusion
in the following words: "The doctrine of Heredity or of Descent, which
comes from Lamarck though it was first made widely known by Darwin, has
since continually gained a broader and surer foundation. But Darwin's
own doctrine regarding the causes and process of Descent which alone
can be called Darwinism, has on the other hand doubtlessly waned in
influence and prestige."
This is exactly what we also maintain: The establishment of the theory
of Descent in general, and the continual retrogression of Darwinism in
particular. Wigand was entirely right when he said that Darwinism would
not live beyond the century.
We may, however, derive from the discussions of Goette something else
that is of the highest importance, namely, an admission in which is to
be found the real and fundamental explanation of the conduct of the
majority of naturalists who still cling to Darwinism. It does not
consist in the fact that they are convinced of the truth of Darwinism
but in their "reluctance to give up the mechanical explanation of
finality proposed by Darwin," or rather in the fear of being driven to
the recognition of theistic principles. With commendable candor Goette
attacks this method of keeping up a system notwithstanding its
recognized deficiencies. Goette furthermore points out especially that
this recognition is more widespread than one might be able to gather
from occasional discussions on the subject.
From the account which Goette gives of the present status of Darwinism
we may safely conclude that Darwinism had entered upon a period of
decay; it is in the third stage of a development through which many a
scientific doctrine has already passed.
The four stages of this development are the following:
1. The incipient stage: A new doctrine arises, the older
representatives of the science oppose it partly because of keener
insight and greater experience, partly also from indolence, not wishing
to allow themselves to be drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium;
among the younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in favor
of the new doctrine.
2. The stage of growth: the new doctrine continually gains greater
favor among the young generation, finding vent in bursts of enthusiasm;
some of the cautious seniors have passed away, others are carried along
by the stream of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge, and
the voices of the thoughtful are no longer heard in the general uproar,
exultingly proclaiming that to live is bliss.
3. The period of decay: the joyous enthusiasm has vanished; depression
succeeds intoxication. Now that the young men have themselves grown
older and become more sober, many things appear in a different light.
The doubts already expressed by the old and prudent during the stage of
growth are now better appreciated and gradually increase in weight.
Many become indifferent, the present younger generation becomes
perplexed and discards the theory entirely.
4. The final stage: the last adherents of the "new doctrine" are dead
or at least old and have ceased to be influential, they sit upon the
ruins of a grandeur that even now belongs to the "good old time." The
influential and directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine, once so
important and seemingly invincible, for the consideration of living
issues and the younger generation regards it as an interesting episode
in the history of science.
With reference to Darwinism we are in the third stage which is
characterized especially by the indifference of the present middle-aged
generation and by growing opposition on the part of the younger coming
generation. This very characteristic feature is brought into prominence
by the discussion of Goette. If all signs, however, are not deceptive,
this third stage, that of decay, is drawing to an end; soon we shall
enter the final stage and with that the tragic-comedy of Darwinism will
be brought to a close.
If some one were to ask me how according to the count of years, I
should determine the extent of the individual stages of Darwinism, this
would be my answer:
1. The incipient stage extends from 1859 (the year during which
Darwin's principal work, _The Origin of Species_, appeared) to the
end of the sixties.
2. The stage of growth: from that time, for about 20 years, to the end
of the eighties.
3. The stage of decay: from that time on to about the year 1900.
4. The final stage: the first decade of the new century.
I am not by choice a prophet, least of all regarding the weather. But I
think it may not be doubted that the fine weather, at least, has passed
for Darwinism. So having carefully scanned the firmament of science for
signs of the weather, I shall for once make a forecast for Darwinism,
namely: Increasing cloudiness with heavy precipitations, indications of
a violent storm, which threatens to cause the props of the structure to
totter, and to sweep it from the scene.