Allen wrote his article in "Mind" two years ago, he was in substantial agreement with myself about the value of natural selection as a means of modification--by natural selection I mean, of course, the commonly known Charles-Darwinian natural selection from fortuitous variations; now, however, in 1885, he is all for this same natural selection again, and in the preface to his "Charles Darwin" writes (after a handsome acknowledgment of "Evolution Old and New") that he "differs from" me "fundamentally in" my "estimate of the worth of Charles Darwin"s distinctive discovery of natural selection."
This he certainly does, for on page 81 of the work itself he speaks of "the distinctive notion of natural selection" as having, "like all true and fruitful ideas, more than once flashed," &c. I have explained usque ad nauseam, and will henceforth explain no longer, that natural selection is no "distinctive notion" of Mr. Darwin"s.
Mr. Darwin"s "distinctive notion" is natural selection from among fortuitous variations.
Writing again (p. 89) of Mr. Spencer"s essay in the "Leader," {218a} Mr. Allen says:-
"It contains, in a very philosophical and abstract form, the theory of "descent with modification" without the distinctive Darwinian adjunct of "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. Yet it was just that lever dexterously applied, and carefully weighted with the whole weight of his endlessly acc.u.mulated inductive instances, that finally enabled our modern Archimedes to move the world."
Again:-
"To account for adaptation, for the almost perfect fitness of every plant and every animal to its position in life, for the existence (in other words) of definitely correlated parts and organs, we must call in the aid of survival of the fittest. Without that potent selective agent, our conception of the becoming of life is a mere chaos; order and organisation are utterly inexplicable save by the brilliant illuminating ray of the Darwinian principle" (p. 93).
And yet two years previously this same principle, after having been thinkable for many years, had become "unthinkable."
Two years previously, writing of the Charles-Darwinian scheme of evolution, Mr. Allen had implied it as his opinion "that all brains are what they are in virtue of antecedent function." "The one creed," he wrote--referring to Mr Darwin"s--"makes the man depend mainly upon the accidents of molecular physics in a colliding germ cell and sperm cell; the other makes him depend mainly on the doings and gains of his ancestors as modified and altered by himself."
This second creed is pure Erasmus-Darwinism and Lamarck.
Again:-
"It seems to me easy to understand how survival of the fittest may result in progress STARTING FROM SUCH FUNCTIONALLY PRODUCED GAINS (italics mine), but impossible to understand how it could result in progress, if it had to start in mere accidental structural increments due to spontaneous variation alone." {219a}
Which comes to saying that it is easy to understand the Lamarckian system of evolution, but not the Charles-Darwinian. Mr. Allen concluded his article a few pages later on by saying
"The first hypothesis" (Mr. Darwin"s) "is one that throws no light upon any of the facts. The second hypothesis" (which is unalloyed Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck) "is one that explains them all with transparent lucidity." Yet in his "Charles Darwin" Mr. Allen tells us that though Mr. Darwin "did not invent the development theory, he made it believable and comprehensible" (p. 4).
In his "Charles Darwin" Mr. Allen does not tell us how recently he had, in another place, expressed an opinion about the value of Mr.
Darwin"s "distinctive contribution" to the theory of evolution, so widely different from the one he is now expressing with characteristic appearance of ardour. He does not explain how he is able to execute such rapid changes of front without forfeiting his claim on our attention; explanations on matters of this sort seem out of date with modern scientists. I can only suppose that Mr.
Allen regards himself as having taken a brief, as it were, for the production of a popular work, and feels more bound to consider the interests of the gentleman who pays him than to say what he really thinks; for surely Mr. Allen would not have written as he did in such a distinctly philosophical and scientific journal as "Mind"
without weighing his words, and nothing has transpired lately, apropos of evolution, which will account for his present recantation. I said in my book "Selections," &c., that when Mr.
Allen made stepping-stones of his dead selves, he jumped upon them to some tune. I was a little scandalised then at the completeness and suddenness of the movement he executed, and spoke severely; I have sometimes feared I may have spoken too severely, but his recent performance goes far to warrant my remarks.
If, however, there is no dead self about it, and Mr. Allen has only taken a brief, I confess to being not greatly edified. I grant that a good case can be made out for an author"s doing as I suppose Mr.
Allen to have done; indeed I am not sure that both science and religion would not gain if every one rode his neighbour"s theory, as at a donkey-race, and the least plausible were held to win; but surely, as things stand, a writer by the mere fact of publishing a book professes to be giving a bona fide opinion. The a.n.a.logy of the bar does not hold, for not only is it perfectly understood that a barrister does not necessarily state his own opinions, but there exists a strict though unwritten code to protect the public against the abuses to which such a system must be liable. In religion and science no such code exists--the supposition being that these two holy callings are above the necessity for anything of the kind.
Science and religion are not as business is; still, if the public do not wish to be taken in, they must be at some pains to find out whether they are in the hands of one who, while pretending to be a judge, is in reality a paid advocate, with no one"s interests at heart except his client"s, or in those of one who, however warmly he may plead, will say nothing but what springs from mature and genuine conviction.
The present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of the moral code in this respect is at the bottom of the supposed antagonism between religion and science. These two are not, or never ought to be, antagonistic. They should never want what is spoken of as reconciliation, for in reality they are one. Religion is the quintessence of science, and science the raw material of religion; when people talk about reconciling religion and science they do not mean what they say; they mean reconciling the statements made by one set of professional men with those made by another set whose interests lie in the opposite direction--and with no recognised president of the court to keep them within due bounds this is not always easy.
Mr. Allen says:-
"At the same time it must be steadily remembered that there are many naturalists at the present day, especially among those of the lower order of intelligence, who, while accepting evolutionism in a general way, and therefore always describing themselves as Darwinians, do not believe, and often cannot even understand, the distinctive Darwinian addition to the evolutionary doctrine--namely, the principle of natural selection. Such hazy and indistinct thinkers as these are still really at the prior stage of Lamarckian evolution" (p. 199).
Considering that Mr. Allen was at that stage himself so recently, he might deal more tenderly with others who still find "the distinctive Darwinian adjunct" "unthinkable." It is perhaps, however, because he remembers his difficulties that Mr. Allen goes on as follows:-
"It is probable that in the future, while a formal acceptance of Darwinism becomes general, the special theory of natural selection will be thoroughly understood and a.s.similated only by the more abstract and philosophical minds."
By the kind of people, in fact, who read the Spectator and are called thoughtful; and in point of fact less than a twelvemonth after this pa.s.sage was written, natural selection was publicly abjured as "a theory of the origin of species" by Mr. Romanes himself, with the implied approval of the Times.
"Thus," continues Mr. Allen, "the name of Darwin will often no doubt be tacked on to what are in reality the principles of Lamarck."
It requires no great power of prophecy to foretell this, considering that it is done daily by nine out of ten who call themselves Darwinians. Ask ten people of ordinary intelligence how Mr. Darwin explains the fact that giraffes have long necks, and nine of them will answer "through continually stretching them to reach higher and higher boughs." They do not understand that this is the Lamarckian view of evolution, not the Darwinian; nor will Mr. Allen"s book greatly help the ordinary reader to catch the difference between the two theories, in spite of his frequent reference to Mr. Darwin"s "distinctive feature," and to his "master-key." No doubt the British public will get to understand all about it some day, but it can hardly be expected to do so all at once, considering the way in which Mr. Allen and so many more throw dust in its eyes, and will doubtless continue to throw it as long as an honest penny is to be turned by doing so. Mr. Allen, then, is probably right in saying that "the name of Darwin will no doubt be often tacked on to what are in reality the principles of Lamarck," nor can it be denied that Mr. Darwin, by his practice of using "the theory of natural selection" as though it were a synonym for "the theory of descent with modification," contributed to this result.
I do not myself doubt that he intended to do this, but Mr. Allen would say no less confidently he did not. He writes of Mr. Darwin as follows:-
"Of Darwin"s pure and exalted moral nature no Englishman of the present generation can trust himself to speak with becoming moderation."
He proceeds to trust himself thus:-
"His love of truth, his singleness of heart, his sincerity, his earnestness, his modesty, his candour, his absolute sinking of self and selfishness--these, indeed are all conspicuous to every reader on the very face of every word he ever printed."
This "conspicuous sinking of self" is of a piece with the "delightful unostentatiousness WHICH EVERY ONE MUST HAVE NOTICED"
about which Mr. Allen writes on page 65. Does he mean that Mr.
Darwin was "ostentatiously unostentatious," or that he was "unostentatiously ostentatious"? I think we may guess from this pa.s.sage who it was that in the old days of the Pall Mall Gazelle called Mr. Darwin "a master of a certain happy simplicity."
Mr. Allen continues:-
"Like his works themselves, they must long outlive him. But his sympathetic kindliness, his ready generosity, the staunchness of his friendship, the width and depth and breadth of his affections, the manner in which "he bore with those who blamed him unjustly without blaming them again"--these things can never be so well known to any other generation of men as to the three generations that walked the world with him" (pp. 174, 175).
Again:-
"He began early in life to collect and arrange a vast encyclopaedia of facts, all finally focussed with supreme skill upon the great principle he so clearly perceived and so lucidly expounded. He brought to bear upon the question an amount of personal observation, of minute experiment, of world-wide book knowledge, of universal scientific ability, such as never, perhaps, was lavished by any other man upon any other department of study. His conspicuous and beautiful love of truth, his unflinching candour, his transparent fearlessness and honesty of purpose, his childlike simplicity, his modesty of demeanour, his charming manner, his affectionate disposition, his kindliness to friends, his courtesy to opponents, his gentleness to harsh and often bitter a.s.sailants, kindled in the minds of men of science everywhere throughout the world a contagious enthusiasm only equalled perhaps among the disciples of Socrates and the great teachers of the revival of learning. His name became a rallying-point for the children of light in every country" (pp. 196, 197).
I need not quote more; the sentence goes on to talk about "firmly grounding" something which philosophers and speculators might have taken a century or two more "to establish in embryo;" but those who wish to see it must turn to Mr. Allen"s book.
If I have formed too severe an estimate of Mr. Darwin"s work and character--and this is more than likely--the fulsomeness of the adulation lavished on him by his admirers for many years past must be in some measure my excuse. We grow tired even of hearing Aristides called just, but what is so freely said about Mr. Darwin puts us in mind more of what the people said about Herod--that he spoke with the voice of a G.o.d, not of a man. So we saw Professor Ray Lankester hail him not many years ago as the "greatest of living men." {224a}
It is ill for any man"s fame that he should be praised so extravagantly. n.o.body ever was as good as Mr. Darwin looked, and a counterblast to such a hurricane of praise as has been lately blowing will do no harm to his ultimate reputation, even though it too blow somewhat fiercely. Art, character, literature, religion, science (I have named them in alphabetical order), thrive best in a breezy, bracing air; I heartily hope I may never be what is commonly called successful in my own lifetime--and if I go on as I am doing now, I have a fair chance of succeeding in not succeeding.
CHAPTER XVII--Professor Ray Lankester and Lamarck
Being anxious to give the reader a sample of the arguments against the theory of natural selection from among variations that are mainly either directly or indirectly functional in their inception, or more briefly against the Erasmus-Darwinian and Lamarckian systems, I can find nothing more to the point, or more recent, than Professor Ray Lankester"s letter to the Athenaeum of March 29, 1884, to the latter part of which, however, I need alone call attention.
Professor Ray Lankester says:-
"And then we are introduced to the discredited speculations of Lamarck, which have found a worthy advocate in Mr. Butler, as really solid contributions to the discovery of the verae causae of variation! A much more important attempt to do something for Lamarck"s hypothesis, of the transmission to offspring of structural peculiarities acquired by the parents, was recently made by an able and experienced naturalist, Professor Semper of Wurzburg. His book on "Animal Life," &c., is published in the "International Scientific Series." Professor Semper adduces an immense number and variety of cases of structural change in animals and plants brought about in the individual by adaptation (during its individual life-history) to new conditions. Some of these are very marked changes, such as the loss of its h.o.r.n.y coat in the gizzard of a pigeon fed on meat; BUT IN NO SINGLE INSTANCE COULD PROFESSOR SEMPER SHOW--although it was his object and desire to do so if possible--that such change was transmitted from parent to offspring. Lamarckism looks all very well on paper, but, as Professor Semper"s book shows, when put to the test of observation and experiment it collapses absolutely."
I should have thought it would have been enough if it had collapsed without the "absolutely," but Professor Ray Lankester does not like doing things by halves. Few will be taken in by the foregoing quotation, except those who do not greatly care whether they are taken in or not; but to save trouble to readers who may have neither Lamarck nor Professor Semper at hand, I will put the case as follows:-
Professor Semper writes a book to show, we will say, that the hour- hand of the clock moves gradually forward, in spite of its appearing stationary. He makes his case sufficiently clear, and then might have been content to leave it; nevertheless, in the innocence of his heart, he adds the admission that though he had often looked at the clock for a long time together, he had never been able actually to see the hour-hand moving. "There now," exclaims Professor Ray Lankester on this, "I told you so; the theory collapses absolutely; his whole object and desire is to show that the hour-hand moves, and yet when it comes to the point, he is obliged to confess that he cannot see it do so." It is not worth while to meet what Professor Ray Lankester has been above quoted as saying about Lamarckism beyond quoting the following pa.s.sage from a review of "The Neanderthal Skull on Evolution" in the "Monthly Journal of Science"
for June, 1885 (p. 362):-
"On the very next page the author reproduces the threadbare objection that the "supporters of the theory have never yet succeeded in observing a single instance in all the millions of years invented (!) in its support of one species of animal turning into another." Now, ex hypothesi, one species turns into another not rapidly, as in a transformation scene, but in successive generations, each being born a shade different from its progenitors.
Hence to observe such a change is excluded by the very terms of the question. Does Mr. Saville forget Mr. Herbert Spencer"s apologue of the ephemeron which had never witnessed the change of a child into a man?"
The apologue, I may say in pa.s.sing, is not Mr. Spencer"s; it is by the author of the "Vestiges," and will be found on page 161 of the 1853 edition of that book; but let this pa.s.s. How impatient Professor Ray Lankester is of any attempt to call attention to the older view of evolution appears perhaps even more plainly in a review of this same book of Professor Semper"s that appeared in "Nature," March 3, 1881. The tenor of the remarks last quoted shows that though what I am about to quote is now more than five years old, it may be taken as still giving us the position which Professor Ray Lankester takes on these matters. He wrote:-