In every disease, especially in a lingering one, there are times when
life's flickering embers glow with an unnatural brightness. Hence, it
would not be a all surprising if a similar phenomenon were to be
observed in the case of dying Darwinism; for it cannot be doubted that
its disease is chronic. It has, in fact, been dying this long time.
Certain indications render it very probable that we are at present
witnessing such a phenomenon, for to-day we behold once more a few
naturalists stepping before the public in defense of Darwinism. We are
desirous of presenting the present status of the Darwinian theory as
objectively as possible, hence, since we have hitherto heard exclusively
anti-Darwinian testimonies--as the nature of the case demanded--we
shall now lend our attention to a Darwinian. The reader may then decide
for himself whether this treatise should not still bear the title, "At
the Death-bed of Darwinism."
The naturalist in question is the zoologist, Professor F. von Wagner.
In the "Umschau" (No. 2, 1900) he published an article, "Regarding the
Present Status of Darwinism," which is highly instructive and important
in more respects than one.
We wish, in the first place, to call special attention to the following
statements embodied in the article: "It is not to be denied that in
serious professional circles the former enthusiasm has considerably
decreased and a scepticism is gaining ground more and more, which
betrays a widespread tendency towards revolutionizing current theories.
The _fin de siecle_ therefore, finds Darwinism not with the proud
mien of a conqueror, but on the defensive against new antagonists." And
again: "It seems, in fact, as if Darwinism were about to enter a
crisis, the outcome of which can scarcely be any longer a matter of
doubt."
To what outcome reference is made, appears from two sentences in the
Introduction: "Thus it happens that a theory which was once accorded
enthusiastic approval, is treated with cold disdain or vice versa.
Examples of this are to be found in the history of all sciences and
circumstances seem to indicate that Darwinism is to add another to the
number of these theories."
Is not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted? It is most
significant that these words are not written by an opponent of
Darwinism, but by one who seems to be thoroughly convinced of the truth
of Darwinism. I am of opinion that it can be no longer a matter of
doubt to any one, that the position of Darwinism is hopeless. If this
were not true, a Darwinian would be very careful about making such an
open and unreserved statement.
We therefore accept Professor von Wagner's words as a very welcome
endorsement of what we have constantly maintained. Professor von
Wagner, however, proposes to himself the further question: Whence comes
the unfavorable attitude of present-day natural science towards
Darwinism? A discussion of this question by a Darwinian cannot but be
of interest to us, and indeed is an important contribution to the
problem. With Goette, Professor von Wagner admits that the objections,
which are raised against Darwinism to-day, are the very same which were
raised from thirty to forty years ago. But when he then proceeds to
assert that this is not to be explained on the assumption that the
pristine enthusiasm for selection was due to a serious over-estimation
of that theory, he fails to furnish even a shred of evidence in support
of his assertion.
Anyone can readily point out that Darwinism explains the totality of
the world of organisms by interlinking them, but has generally failed
to account for the individual case, Wagner admits this as far as the
"actual" is concerned, for it is quite impossible to trace with any
certainty the action, in any particular case, of natural selection in
the process which results in the production of a new species. At the
outset it was reasonable to hope, that with the progress of science
this difficulty would be solved or at least lessened; but this
expectation has not been realized. * * * It is wholly unintelligible
how a naturalist can make this statement five hundred years after Bacon
of Verulam, without drawing therefrom the proper conclusion. This lack
of logic reminds me strongly of the assertion recently made by an
eminent authority, that the principal cause of the difficulties of many
naturalists in matters of religion is their deficient philosophical
training.
Wagner's statement implies that, in the case of Darwinism one may in
defiance of all established law, actually reverse the methods of
natural science. How justifiable and how necessary was it not, then,
that even three decades ago Wigand should have written his
comprehensive work: "Darwinism and the Scientific Researches of Newton
and Cuvier."
Ordinarily the scientific (inductive) method proceeds from the "actual"
and attempts to deduce from the "individual case" an explanation, which
applies to the whole. Here, however, we are face to face with a theory,
which, according to the candid confession of an advocate, fails in the
individual case, but furnishes a unifying explanation of the whole.
This means nothing less than a complete subversion of all scientific
methods. Usually a theory is deduced from separate observations
regarding the "actual" but here--and this is what Wigand constantly
asserted--the theory was enunciated first, and then followed the
attempt to establish it in fact. One could then rest content and trust
to the future to establish the theory by producing evidences of the
"actual" in the individual case. But forty years have elapsed since the
Darwinian hypothesis first became known, naturalists by the thousands
have spent themselves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs based
on actual facts, and to-day one of its own advocates has to confess
that the endeavor has been a total failure. Instead of drawing the
conclusion, however, that the theory is unwarranted and that the
decrease of enthusiasm for it is therefore a natural consequence, he
gratuitously enters a flat denial of this inference.
Every intelligent observer must conclude with absolute certainty from
this confession of a Darwinian, that Darwinism is, in fact, not a
scientific but a philosophic theory of nature.
But let us proceed to a consideration of the other reasons which Wagner
suggests as an explanation of the retrogression of Darwinism. He states
as a first reason, that scientific research since Darwin "has amassed
such an abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the principle
of Descent, that this doctrine has been able, even for some time past,
to maintain an independent position and to draw proofs of its truth
immediately from nature itself, without the intervention of Darwinism."
* * * "From which it follows as a matter of course, that the question,
whether the manner indicated by Darwin for the origin of species is the
correct one, has decreased by no means inconsiderably in significance,
inasmuch as Darwin's theory could now, if it were necessary, be
abandoned with less concern than formerly because it could be
relinquished without detriment to the doctrine of Descent."
It is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a fact of such
importance so superficially. With naive unconcern there appears on the
face of it the acknowledgement that Darwinism has really not been based
on actual observation but has been enunciated for the sake of the
doctrine of Descent. Come what may, this must be vindicated. Other
means are now said to substantiate it, hence the Darwinian crutches may
safely be discarded. The principle of action twenty or thirty years ago
was therefore: a poor explanation is better than no explanation. I
cannot understand, how Wagner dares to credit present-day naturalists
with such motives.
When he then proceeds to say "that with the advance of the principle of
development, new lines were entered upon, which led primarily to the
corroboration and empiric demonstration of the doctrine of Descent, and
not of Darwinism"--that the theory of Darwin was consequently neglected
and, in fact, forced into the background--"that the labors specifically
attributable to Darwinism as compared with the theory of Descent, put
the former more and more into a false position to the detriment of its
prestige"--when, I say, Wagner has marshalled all these considerations
to explain the present aversion to Darwinism, he is guilty of a total
subversion of facts. The true state of the case is the very contrary.
The credit given by Wagner to the Darwinian theory for stimulating
research, is the very same as I also accorded it. The purpose of this
research undoubtedly was to substantiate not only the doctrine of
evolution in general, but also the Darwinian hypothesis in particular.
To verify this, one need only glance over the various numbers of the
"Kosmos," the periodical, which Haeckel and his associates established
for that very purpose and which continued to publish good and bad
indiscriminately until some time in the eighties when lack of interest
compelled its discontinuance. Wagner therefore misconstrues facts when
he asserts that there have been no specifically Darwinian researches.
Since the thoughts of Darwin first found expression these researches
have been most abundant and their results have been consigned to the
printer's ink. No doubt--and this is the salient point, which Wagner
passes over in complete silence--they have been of service only to the
doctrine of Descent in general, and in spite of the energetic efforts
of the Darwinians, they have never led to the ardently desired proof
from facts of the hypothesis of selection. This and no other is the
state of the case.
In view of these vain endeavors, however, intelligent investigators
have gradually become perplexed and have turned away from Darwinism,
not because they have lost interest in it nor even because they no
longer feel the need of it to assist the doctrine of Descent, but for
the one sole reason that its insufficiency has become more and more
apparent and that all experiments undertaken on its behalf have made
the fact clearer and clearer that the first criticism of the great
naturalists of the sixties and seventies was perfectly justified.
In forming a judgment concerning the whole question it cannot but be a
matter of the utmost significance, that men have turned away from
Darwinism to entirely different theories of Descent. It is a mistake to
suppose, as Wagner would have us suppose, that the last decades have
produced nothing but generalities regarding the doctrine of Descent.
For they have also witnessed the publication of a number of significant
works, which aimed at giving a better individual explanation than was
found in Darwinism. I need but recall Naegeli, Eimer, Haacke and a host
of others. The most noteworthy feature of these new views regarding
theories of Descent, is the constantly spreading conviction that the
real determining causes of evolution are to be sought for in the
constitution of the organisms themselves, hence in internal principles.
This view, however, is not only absolutely and diametrically opposed to
Darwinism but completely destructive of it as well.
The actual circumstances, therefore, are the very reverse of those
pictured by Wagner. Darwinism has been rejected not on account of a
lack of research but on account of an abundance of research, which
provided its absolute insufficiency.
Besides these "general points of view," as he calls them, Wagner finds
two other "considerations of no less importance" for explaining the
decay of Darwinism. It is an incontrovertible fact, that the hereditary
transmission of acquired characters has in no way been proved. On the
contrary after it had at first received a general tacit recognition and
was postulated by Lamarck, Darwin and Haeckel, it was denied by
Weismann. Wagner asserts "that the number of those who have allied
themselves with Weismann in this matter is obviously on the increase as
is naturally the case, since, to the present day not a single
incontestable case of hereditary transmission of acquired characters
has been demonstrated, where as actual facts are at hand to prove the
contrary."
It is perfectly evident that the doctrine that acquired characters are
not inherited is fatal to Darwinism. Hence Wagner rightly considers its
ascendancy a notable factor in bringing about the decay of Darwinism.
Finally, Wagner briefly indicates that certain new theories necessarily
exercised an influence on Darwinism. Haeckel and the palaeontologists
of North America supplemented it with a number of Lamarckian elements
without alteration of its essential principles (the Neo-Lamarckians);
Eimer regards the transmission of acquired characters as an established
fact, but rejects natural selection as wholly worthless; Weismann, on
the contrary, denies the transmission of acquired characters, but
nevertheless regards natural selection as the main factor in the
formation of species (the theory of the Neo-Darwinians). Eimer speaks
of the impotence of natural selection, Weismann of its omnipotence. All
this has shaken men's confidence in the trustworthiness of the
Darwinian principles. This fact we are in no way inclined to doubt, but
we must again differ from Wagner with regard to its significance. We
maintain that matters had to take this turn, since the reason why
Darwinism is now meeting with such serious opposition, is to be found
in its very nature. This indeed should have been recognized forty years
ago instead of just beginning to dawn on men of science at the present
day. For if acquired characters are not transmitted by heredity,
Darwinism is an impossibility. Forty years ago Darwinism should have
recognized that its first and supreme task was to prove the hereditary
transmission of acquired characters, so as to establish itself, first
of all, on a sound footing.
One of the most peculiar incidents in this scientific tragi-comedy is
the fact that Weismann, the mainstay of contemporary decadent
Darwinism, attacks with might and main its fundamental assumption, the
transmission of acquired characters, whereas Eimer, who is thoroughly
convinced that he has proved that doctrine, in his turn attacks
Darwinism and proves with telling effect the impotence of its
principles. The amused observer can really demand nothing more. He can
but rub his hands for joy and cheer on the heated combatants: Well
done! On with the struggle! and the last vestige of Darwinism will soon
have disappeared.
If, then, we were to summarize our strictures on the reasons which
Wagner adduces to account for the decay of Darwinism, we would say
this: Some of them are unwarranted, others are falsely interpreted.
There is, however, a third point which is of special interest to us, in
the article under consideration; we refer to the view, which there
finds expression, regarding the nature and outcome of the present
crisis--a crisis, which, as a candid naturalist, Wagner is not in a
position to deny.
This view rests on the entirely gratuitous assertion, "that the
decline, in the esteem enjoyed by Darwinism, is not due to a better
insight arising from widened experience, but is primarily the
expression of a tendency--a tendency which resulted almost as a
psychological necessity from the precarious position into which
Darwinism was forced under the sway of the theory of Descent." This
assertion rests, as stated above, on wholly erroneous assumptions. It
is a serious mistake, to speak in this connection of tendencies and
even to brand them as a "psychological necessity." The decline in
esteem is essentially due to experience, and indeed to experience which
has made it certain that Darwinism has everywhere failed.
The importance of the present crisis in Darwinism is to be restricted
even further, according to Wagner, by the fact, "that the real
objections, urged against the theory of Darwin, are almost in every
instance based on theoretic considerations, the validity of which can
be put to the test only in fictitious cases. This manner of proceeding
manifestly leads to the inevitable consequence, that the results thus
obtained can claim no decisive weight against Darwinism. A decisive
critique can be constructed only on the basis of experience, and in
this connection it cannot be emphasized sufficiently, that, as yet, the
path to it has been scarcely indicated, to say nothing of its having
been actually pursued." The reason for this fact according to Wagner,
is to be found "in the numerous and most extraordinary difficulties
that arise in the way of the empiric investigation of the theory of
selection."
After we have read all this, we instinctively ask ourselves: do we
actually live at the beginning of the 20th century? Is it possible,
that even at this late day the whole structure of scientific method is
to be subverted in this fashion?
Just consider for a moment, what according to these words is the actual
import of the whole article: Darwinism is a unifying explanation of the
origin of the totality of the world of organisms, but fails in the
individual case; in any specified case it is "almost impossible" to
trace with any certainty the action of natural selection in the process
which results in the production of a new species; that is, Darwinism
was enunciated with a complete disregard for inductive method, as an
hypothesis to explain the whole, and without actual proof in the
concrete--a most unscientific procedure. Immediately after, however,
the adversaries of Darwinism are asked in all seriousness to produce
individual facts in disproof of the theory.
In the same strain Wagner goes on to say that "from no point of view is
our vision so penetrating as to be able to grasp the coherence which
according to Darwin pervades the complex course of natural selection.
When men of science take occasion to repudiate Darwinism because of our
inability to explain satisfactorily any particular case by means of the
theory of selection, this inability arises not from the theory of
Darwin but from the inadequacy of our experience. For as yet the
empiric prerequisites for an objective judgment regarding the validity
or futility of the theory of selection are entirely lacking." Every
naturalist who believes in the inductive method must needs draw the
conclusion from these naive admissions, that, as Darwinism lacks the
empiric prerequisites, it should be discarded. Moreover, the demand is
made in all seriousness, that, in order to refute Darwinism which has
not as yet been established empirically, empiric proofs should be
forthcoming.
To my mind, the scientific and logical bankruptcy of Darwinism was
never announced more bluntly and ingenuously. Furthermore it must be
remarked that Wagner's statement, regarding "fictitious cases," is not
even pertinent. He seems to have no idea of the observations and
experiments of Sachs, Haberlandt, Eimer, and a host of other
investigators. The disproof of Darwinism on the basis of scientific
research is an accomplished fact.
A word about the conclusion of Wagner's article, which in view of what
has been already said, cannot be a matter of surprise. He maintains
that the considerations which he adduces, "clearly" prove that there is
no "reasonable ground for despairing of the theory of Darwin--; for a
theory, which neither proceeds from questionable assumptions, nor loses
itself in airy hypotheses, but rests throughout and exclusively on
facts, need never fear the advance of science."
But a moment ago it was asserted that the theory of selection is
lacking "entirely as yet the empiric prerequisites" and now only
twenty-three lines further on, it rests "throughout and exclusively on
facts." It is difficult to know what conclusion to come to regarding a
naturalist and University professor who can commit himself to such a
contradiction. I shall abstain from any comment and let the reader form
his own judgment.
Does this article betoken the death-bed of Darwinism? For my own part I
repeat what I said above, that I consider it the most valuable
contribution to the characterization of decadent Darwinism that has
appeared up to the present time. The sooner a theory, which is thus
treated and characterized by one of its own advocates, is stored away
in the lumber-room of science, the better. In view of the sound
judgment, which is to-day becoming more and more apparent in scientific
circles, there is reason to hope that this article of Professor von
Wagner will be additional incentive for many naturalists to break
completely with Darwinism.