I have already called attention several times to the fact that
Darwinism is indeed on the wane among men of science, but that it has
gradually penetrated into lay circles where it is now posing as
irrefragable truth. Especially the circles dominated by the social
democrats swear by nothing higher than Darwin and Haeckel. In fact,
only a short time ago Bebel publicly professed himself a convert to
Haeckel's wisdom.
It is inevitable, however, that light should gradually dawn even in
these circles, for it would be indeed strange, if no honest man could
be found to tell them the truth regarding Darwinism. This has occurred
sooner than I dared to hope. This chapter can announce the glad tidings
that even in "social-democratic science" Darwinism is doomed to decay.
Much printer's ink will, of course, be yet wasted before it will be so
entirely dead as to be no longer available as a weapon against
Christianity; but a beginning at least has been made.
In the December number of the ninth year of the _Sozialistische
Monatshefte_, a social-democratic writer, Curt Grottewitz,
undertakes to bring out an article on "Darwinian Myths." It is stated
there that Darwin had a few eminent followers, but that the educated
world took no notice of their work; that now, however, they seemed to
be attracting more attention. "There is no doubt, that a number of
Darwinian views, which are still prevalent to-day, have sunk to the
level of untenable myths. True, the main doctrine of Darwin--the origin
of new species from existing ones--is incontestably established, but
apart from this even some very fundamental principles, which the master
thought he discerned in the development of organisms, can scarcely be
any longer maintained."
It may be well to remark here, that this was not really Darwin's main
doctrine, for it already existed before his time (Lamarck, Geoffroy St.
Hilaire). Darwin's main doctrine is the explanation of the origin of
species by natural selection operating through the struggle for
existence. It is therefore the old error repeated. Darwinism is
confounded with the doctrine of Descent, of which it is merely one
form. It is not our intention to derogate in the least from Darwin's
merit, which consists in the fact that he gained general recognition
for the doctrine of Descent; but that was not his main work. He wished
above all to explain the _How_ of Descent; this is his doctrine,
and this doctrine we attack and declare to be on the point of expiring.
Grottewitz very frankly continues: "The difficulty with the Darwinian
doctrines consists in the fact that they are incapable of being
strictly and irrefutably demonstrated. The origin of one species from
another, the conservation of useful forms, the existence of countless
intermediary links, are all assumptions, which could never be supported
by concrete cases found in actual experience." Some are said to be well
established indirectly by proofs drawn from probabilities, while others
are proved to be absolutely untenable. Among the latter Grottewitz
includes "sexual selection," which is indeed a monstrous figment of the
imagination. There was moreover really no reason for adhering to it so
long. It is eminently untrue, that the biological research of the last
few years proved for the _first_ time the untenableness of this
doctrine, as Grottewitz seems to think. Clear thinkers recognized its
untenableness long ago, and surely Grottewitz and the whole band of
Darwinian devotees as well, could have known that as early as
twenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected to a reductio ad
absurdum with classic clearness in Wigand's great work.
It is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon; for decades we behold a
doctrine reverently re-echoed; thoughtful investigators expose its
folly, but still the worship continues, the Zeitgeist must have its
idol. It appears, however, as if the Zeitgeist were gradually tiring of
its golden calf and were on the point of casting it into the
rubbish-heap. Misgivings arise on all sides; here one class of
objections are considered, there another. A closer examination reveals
that these are by no means new reasons, based on new researches, but
the very oldest, urged long ago and perhaps much more clearly and
forcibly. At that time, however, the Zeitgeist was under the spell of
the suggestion of individual men: it heard and saw nothing but the
captivating, obvious simplicity of the doctrine; but now when the
subject begins to be tedious and the discussion lags, the interest
consequently abates and the Zeitgeist suddenly grasps the old
objections, presented in a new garb, and what was hitherto truth, clear
and irrefutable, now sinks into the dreary, gray mists of myth. Sic
transit gloria mundi!
This has been the history of Darwinism, and especially of Darwin's
theory of sexual selection. What Grottewitz urges against it, was
advanced decades ago by other and more eminent men; then people would
not listen, to-day they are inclined to listen. Of very special
interest is the further admission, that "the principle of gradual
development" has been "considerably shaken" and is "certainly
untenable." Grottewitz points out that it has been demonstrated that
the progeny of the same parents are often entirely dissimilar, and that
new organs very suddenly spring up in individuals even when they had
had no previous existence. "A slight variation from the parent form is
of no utility to the progeny; they must acquire at once a completely
developed, new character, if it is to be of any use to them." Quite
right! but this one admission is destructive of the entire doctrine of
natural selection. If one accepts saltatory evolution, as for instance,
Heer, Koelliker, and Wigand did long ago, then, as Grottewitz now
discovers, the difficulty arising for Darwinism from the absence of the
numerous intermediary forms which it postulates, naturally disappears.
Grottewitz attributes sudden variation to the influence of environment,
just as Geoffroy St. Hilaire had already done before Darwin. He
likewise repudiates Darwin's doctrine of adaptation and the theory of
"chance," which is bound up with all his views. "Darwin's theory of
chance seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection." The
article closed with these words: "There must evidently be a very
definite principle, according to which the frequent and striking
development from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from the
no-longer adapted to the readapted, proceeds. We all of us are far from
considering this principle a teleological, mystical or mythical one,
but for that matter, Darwin's theory of chance is nothing more than a
myth."
He is most certainly in the right. To place this whole wonderful, and
so minutely regulated world of organisms at the mercy of chance is
utterly monstrous, and for this very reason Darwinism, which is
throughout a doctrine of chance, must be rejected; it is indeed a myth.
We are grateful to Grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed mask
of science from this myth and expose it before his associates. He
should, however, have done so even more vigorously and unequivocally
and should have stated plainly: Darwinism is a complete failure; we
believe indeed in a natural development of the organic world, but we
are unable to prove it.
In the conclusion of the article quoted there is, of course, again to
be found the cloven-hoof: by all means no teleological principle! But
why in the world should we not accept a teleological principle, since
it is clearly evident that the whole world of life is permeated by
teleology, that is, by design and finality? Why not? Forsooth, because
then belief in God would again enter and create havoc in the ranks of
the "brethren."
But however much men may struggle against the teleologico-theistic
principle and secure themselves against it, it is all of no avail, the
principle stands at the gate and clamors loudly for admission; and if
Grottewitz could but bring himself to undertake a study of Wigand's
masterful work, perhaps his heresy would increase and we might perhaps
then find another article in the "Sozialistische Monatshefte" tending
still more strongly toward the truth.
But what will Brother Bebel with his Haeckelism say to the present
article?
All in all, instead of calling his article "Darwinian Myths" Grottewitz
might just as well have entitled it "At the Deathbed of Darwinism." May
he bring out a series of "deathbed articles" to disclose the truth
regarding Darwinism to his associates.