_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

1904GERMAN LITERARY BOARDBurlington, Iowa

Copyright 1904By R. NEUMANN

_CONTENTS_

PREFACE 9

INTRODUCTION 27

CHAPTER I. --The Return to Wigand--The Botanist, Julius vonSachs--The Vienna Zoologist, Dr. Schneider 35

CHAPTER II. --Professor Goethe on "The Present Status ofDarwinism"--Explains the Reluctance of certain men ofScience to Discard Darwinism 41

CHAPTER III. --Professor Korchinsky Rejects Darwinism--HisTheory of Heterogenesis--Professor Haberlandt ofGraz--Demonstration of a "Vital Force"--Its Nature--TheSudden Origination of a New Organ--Importance of theExperiment. 49

CHAPTER IV. --Testimony of a Palaeontologist, ProfessorSteinmann--On Haeckel's Family Trees--The Principle ofMultiple Origin--Extinction of the Saurians--"Darwinism Notthe Alpha and Omega of the Doctrine of Descent"--Steinmann'sConclusions 60

CHAPTER V. --Eimer's Theory of Organic Growth--Definite Linesof Development--Rejects Darwin's Theory of FluctuatingVariations--Opposes Weismann--Repudiates Darwinian"Mimicry"--Discards the "Romantic" Hypothesis of SexualSelection--"Transmutation is a Physiological Process, aPhyletic Growth" 69

CHAPTER VI. --Admissions of a Darwinian--Professor vonWagner's Explanation of the Decay of Darwinism--DarwinismRejects the Inductive Method, Hence Unscientific--Wagner'sContradictory Assertions 90

CHAPTER VII. --Haeckel's Latest Production--His ExtremeModesty--Reception of the Weltraetsel--Schmidt'sApologia--The Romanes Incident--Men of Science Who ConvictedHaeckel of Deliberate Fraud 104

CHAPTER VIII. --Grottewitz Writes on "Darwinian Myths"--DarwinismIncapable of Scientific Proof--"The Principle of GradualDevelopment Certainly Untenable"--"Darwin's Theory of"Chance" a Myth" 118

CHAPTER IX. --Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen--Doctrine ofDescent Not Substantiated--Missing Links--"Collapse of Haeckel'sTheory"--Descent Hypothesis "Antiquated"--Fleischmann Formerlya Darwinian--Haeckel's Disreputable Methods of Defense 124

CHAPTER X. --Hertwig, the Berlin Anatomist, Protests Againstthe Materialistic View of Life"--No Empiric Proof ofDarwinism--"The Impotence of Natural Selection"--RejectsHaeckel's "Biogenetic Law" 137

CONCLUSION. --Darwinism Abandoned by Men of Science--Supplantedby a Theory in Harmony With Theistic Principles 146

PREFACE. 

The general tendency of recent scientific literature dealing with theproblem of organic evolution may fairly be characterized as distinctlyand prevailingly unfavorable to the Darwinian theory of NaturalSelection. In the series of chapters herewith offered for the firsttime to English readers, Dr. Dennert has brought together testimonieswhich leave no room for doubt about the decadence of the Darwiniantheory in the highest scientific circles in Germany. And outside ofGermany the same sentiment is shared generally by the leaders ofscientific thought. That the popularizers of evolutionary conceptionshave any anti-Darwinian tendencies cannot, of course, be for a momentmaintained. For who would undertake to popularize what is not novel orstriking? But a study of the best scientific literature reveals thefact that the attitude assumed by one of our foremost Americanzoologists, Professor Thomas Hunt Morgan, in his recent work on"Evolution and Adaptation, " is far more general among the leading menof science than is popularly supposed. Professor Morgan's position maybe stated thus: He adheres to the general theory of Descent, i. E. , hebelieves the simplest explanation which has yet been offered of thestructural _similarities_ between species within the same group, is the hypothesis of a common descent from a parent species. But heemphatically rejects the notion--and this is the quintessence ofDarwinism--that the _dissimilarities_ between species have beenbrought about by the purely mechanical agency of natural selection. 

To find out what, precisely, Darwin meant by the term "naturalselection" let us turn for a moment, to his great work, _The Originof Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In the second chapter ofthat work, Darwin observes that small "fortuitous" variations inindividual organisms, though of small interest to the systematist, areof the "highest importance" for his theory, since these minutevariations often confer on the possessor of them, some advantage overhis fellows in the quest for the necessaries of life. Thus these chanceindividual variations become the "first steps" towards slightvarieties, which, in turn, lead to sub-species, and, finally, tospecies. Varieties, in fact, are "incipient species. " Hence, small"fortuitous" fluctuating, individual variations--i. E. , those whichchance to occur without predetermined direction--are the "first-steps"in the origin of species. This is the first element in the Darwiniantheory. 

In the third chapter of the same work we read: "It has been seen in thelast chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there issome individual variability. * * * But the mere existence of individualvariability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary asa _foundation_ of the work, helps us but little in understandinghow species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptationsof one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditionsof life, and of one organic being to another being, been perfected?* * *" Again it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I havecalled incipient species, become ultimately converted into good anddistinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each otherfar more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groupsof species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise?All of these results follow from the _struggle for life_. Owing tothis struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever causeproceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of aspecies, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings, and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservationof such individuals and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving, for ofthe many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but asmall number can survive. I have called this principle by which eachslight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term, "naturalselection. " Mr. Darwin adds that his meaning would be more accuratelyexpressed by a phrase of Mr. Spencer's coinage, "Survival of theFittest. "

It may be observed that neither "natural selection" nor "survival ofthe fittest" gives very accurate expression to the idea which Darwinseems to wish to convey. Natural selection is at best a metaphoricaldescription of a process, and "survival of the fittest" describes theresult of that process. Nor shall we find the moving principle ofevolution in individual variability unless we choose to regard chanceas an efficient agency. Consequently, the only efficient principleconceivably connected with the process is the "struggle for existence;"and even this has only a purely negative function in the origination ofspecies or of adaptations. For, the "surviving fittest" owe nothingmore to the struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans owe tothe death-dealing bullets which did _not_ hit them. Mr. Darwin has, however, obviated all difficulty regarding precision of terms by theremark that he intended to use his most important term, "struggle forexistence" in "a large and metaphorical sense. "

We have now seen the second element of Darwinism, namely, the "strugglefor life. " The theory of natural selection, then, postulates theaccumulation of minute "fortuitions" individual modifications, whichare useful to the possessor of them, by means of a struggle for life ofsuch a sanguinary nature and of such enormous proportions as to resultin 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 ofevolution, on the one hand, and with the theory of struggle for life, on the other hand, it is necessary to insist on the Darwinianconception of small, fluctuating, useful variations as the"first-steps" in the evolutionary process. For, this conceptiondistinguishes Darwinism from the more recent evolutionary theory, e. G. , of De Vries who rejects the notion that species have originated by theaccumulation of fluctuating variations; and it is quite as essential tothe Darwinian theory of natural selection as is the "struggle forlife. " It is, in fact, an integral element in the selection theory. 

The attitude of science towards Darwinism may, therefore, beconveniently summarized in its answer to the following questions:

1. Is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among matureforms, as Darwin postulates, actually occurs?

2. Can the origin of adaptive structures be explained on the ground oftheir _utility_ in this struggle, i. E. , is it certain or evenprobable that the organism would have perished, had it lacked theparticular adaptation in its present degree of perfection? On thecontrary, 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. " Thosewhich follow have to do with the problem of variations. 

3. Is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by theaccumulation of fluctuating individual variations?

4. Does the evidence of the geological record--which, as Huxleyobserved, is the only direct evidence that can be had in the questionof evolution--does this evidence tell for or against the origin ofexisting species from earlier ones by means of minute gradualmodifications?

We must be content here with the briefest outline of the reply ofscience to these inquiries. 

1. Darwin invites his readers to "keep steadily in mind that eachorganic being is striving to increase in geometrical ratio. " If thistendency were to continue unchecked, the progeny of living beings wouldsoon be unable to find standing room. Indeed, the very bacteria wouldquickly convert every vestige of organic matter on earth into their ownsubstance. For has not Cohn estimated that the offspring of a singlebacterium, at its ordinary rate of increase under favorable conditions, would in three days amount to 4, 772 billions of individuals with anaggregate weight of seven thousand five hundred tons? And the19, 000, 000 elephants which, according to Darwin, should to-dayperpetuate the lives of each pair that mated in the twelfthcentury--surely these would be a "magna pars" in the sanguinarycontest. When the imagination views these and similar figures, andplaces in contrast to this multitude of living beings, the limitedsupply of nourishment, the comparison of nature with a hugeslaughterhouse seems tame enough. But reason, not imagination, asDarwin observes more than once, should be our guide in a scientificinquiry. 

It is observed on careful reflection that Darwin's theory is endangeredby an extremely large disturbing element, viz. , accidental destruction. Under this term we include all the destruction of life which occurs inutter indifference to the presence or absence of any individualvariations from the parent form. Indeed, the greatest destruction takesplace among immature forms before any variation from the parent stockis discernible at all. In this connection we may instance the vastamount of eggs and seeds destroyed annually irrespective of anyadaptive advantage that would be possessed by the matured form. And thecountless forms in every stage of individual development which meetdestruction through "accidental causes which would not be in the leastdegree mitigated by certain changes of structure or of constitutionwhich 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 thisfortuitous destruction, there would supervene among the survivors astruggle for life sufficiently destructive to satisfy his theory. Thissuggestion, however, fails to meet the difficulty. For, as ProfessorMorgan points out, Darwin assumes "that a second competition takesplace after the first destruction of individuals has occurred, and thispresupposes that more individuals reach maturity than there is room forin the economy of nature. " It presupposes that the vast majority offorms that survive accidental destruction, succumb in the secondstruggle for life in which the determining factor is some slightindividual variation, e. G. , a little longer neck in the case of thegiraffe, or a wing shorter than usual in the case of an insect on anisland. 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 organicdevelopment, in comparison with co-operation and social action. " What, indeed, but a surrender of the paramountcy of struggle for life, isHuxley's celebrated Romanes lecture in which he supplants the cosmicprocess by the ethical? The French free-thinker, Charles Robin, gaveexpression to the verdict of exact science when he declared: "Darwinismis 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 foradaptive structures has been dealt with at considerable length byProfessor Morgan in the concluding chapters of the work alreadymentioned. We cannot here follow him in his study of the various kindsof adaptations, e. G. , form and symmetry, mutual adaptation of colonialforms, protective coloration, organs of extreme perfection, tropismsand instincts, etc. , in regard to the origin of each of which he isforced to abandon the Darwinian theory. It will suffice to callattention to his conclusions concerning the phenomena of regenerationof organs. By his research in this special field Professor Morgan haswon international recognition among men of science. It was whileprosecuting his studies in this field that he became impressed withthe utter bankruptcy of the theory of natural selection whichDarwinians put forward to explain the acquisition by organisms of thismost useful power of regeneration. It is not difficult to show thatregeneration could not in many cases, and presumably in none, havebeen acquired through natural selection (p. 379). If an earth worm(_allolobophora foctida_) be cut in two in the middle, the posteriorpiece regenerates at its anterior cut end, not a head but a tail. "Notby the widest stretch of the imagination can such a result be accountedfor on the selection theory. " Quite the reverse case presents itselfin certain planarians. If the head of _planaria lugubris_ is cutoff just behind the eyes, there develops at the cut surface of thehead-piece another head turned in the opposite direction. "These andother reasons, " concludes Professor Morgan (p. 381), "indicate withcertainty that regeneration cannot be explained by the theory ofnatural selection. "

The ingenuity of the Darwinian imagination, however, will hardly failto assign some reason why two heads are more useful than one in theabove instance, and thus reconcile the phenomenon with Darwinism. For, according to Professor Morgan "to imagine that a particular organ isuseful to its possessor and to account for its origin because of theimagined benefit conferred, is the general procedure of the followersof the Darwinian school. " "Personal conviction, mere possibility, "writes Quatrefages, "are offered as proofs, or at least as argumentsin favor of the theory. " "The realms of fancy are boundless, " isBlanchard's significant comment on Darwin's explanation of theblindness of the mole. "On this class of speculation, " says Bateson inhis "Materials for the Study of Variation, " referring to Darwinianspeculation as to the beneficial or detrimental nature of variations, "on this class of speculation the only limitations are those of theingenuity of the author. " The general form of Darwin's argument, declared the writer of a celebrated article in the North BritishReview, is as follows: "All these things may have been, therefore mytheory is possible; and since my theory is a possible one, all thosehypotheses which it requires are rendered probable. "

3. We pass now to the question of the possibility of building up a newspecies by the accumulation of chance individual variations. Thatspecies ever originate in this way is denied by the advocates of theevolutionary theory which is now superseding Darwinism. Typical of thenew school is the botanist Hugo De Vries of Amsterdam. The"first-steps" in the origin of new species according to De Vries arenot fluctuating individual variations, but mutations, i. E. , definiteand permanent modifications. According to the mutation theory a newspecies arises from the parent species, not gradually but suddenly. Itappears suddenly "without visible preparation and without transitionalsteps. " The wide acceptance with which this theory is meeting must beattributed to the fact that men of science no longer believe in theorigin of species by the accumulation of slight fluctuatingmodifications. To quote the words of De Vries, "Fluctuating variationcannot overstep the limits of the species, even after the mostprolonged selection--still less can it lead to the production of new, permanent characters. " It has been the wont of Darwinians to base theirspeculations on the assumption that "an inconceivably long time" couldeffect almost anything in the matter of specific transformations. Butthe evidence which has been amassed during the past forty years leavesno doubt that there is a limit to individual variability which neithertime nor skill avail to remove. As M. Blanchard asserts in his work, _La vie des etres animes_ (p. 102), "All investigation and observationmake it clear that, while the variability of creatures in a state ofnature displays itself in very different degrees, yet, in its mostastonishing manifestations, it remains confined within a circle beyondwhich it cannot pass. "

It is interesting to observe how writers of the Darwinian schoolattempt to explain the origin of articulate language as a gradualdevelopment of animal sounds. "It does not, " observes Darwin, "appearaltogether incredible that some unusually wise ape-like animal shouldhave thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey, so as toindicate to his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected danger. Andthis would have been a first step in the formation of a language. " Butwhat a tremendous step! An ape-like animal that "thought" of imitatinga beast must certainly have been "unusually wise. " In bridging thechasm which rational speech interposes between man and the brutecreation, the Darwinian is forced to assume that the whole essentialmodification is included in the first step. Then he conceals theassumption by parcelling out the accidental modification in a supposedseries of transitional stages. He endeavors to veil his inability toexplain the first step, as Chevalier Bunsen remarked, by the easy butfruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined to explainthe gradual development of animals into men; as if millions of yearscould supply the want of an agent necessary for the first movement, forthe first step in the line of progress. "How can speech, the expressionof thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of years, out ofunarticulated sounds which express feelings of pleasure, pain, andappetite? The common-sense of mankind will always shrink from suchtheories. "

4. The hopes and fears of Darwinians have rightly been centered on thehistory of organic development as outlined in the geological record. Ithas been pointed out repeatedly by the foremost men of science that ifthe theory of genetic descent with the accumulation of small variationsbe the true account of the origin of species, a complete record of theancestry of any existing species would reveal no distinction of speciesand genera. Between any two well-defined species, if one be derivedfrom the other, there must be countless transition forms. Butpalaeontology fails to support the theory of evolution by minutevariations. Darwinism has been shattered on the geologic rocks. "Thecomplete absence of intermediate forms, " says Mr. Carruthers, "and thesudden and contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widelyseparated groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of anycountenance from the plant record of these ancient rocks. The wholeevidence is against evolution (i. E. , by minute modification) and thereis none for it. " (cf. _History of Plant Life and its Bearing onTheory of Evolution_, 1898). Similar testimony regarding the animalkingdom is borne by Mr. Mivart in the following carefully wordedstatement: "The mass of palaeontological evidence is indeedoverwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification. " "The Darwiniantheory, " declared Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, recently, "has nota single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not theresult of scientific research, but purely the product of theimagination. "

On one occasion Huxley expressed his conviction that the pedigree ofthe horse as revealed in the geological record furnished demonstrativeevidence for the theory of evolution. The question has been enteredinto in detail by Professor Fleischmann in his work, _DieDescendenstheorie_. In this book the Erlangen professor makes greatcapital 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 ProfessorMorgan is noteworthy: "When he (Fleischmann) says there is no absoluteproof that the common plan of structure must be the result of bloodrelationship, he is not bringing a fatal argument against the theory ofdescent, for no one but an enthusiast sees anything more in theexplanation than a very probable theory that appears to account for thefacts. To demand an absolute proof is to ask for more than anyreasonable advocate of the descent theory claims for it. " (ProfessorMorgan, as we have already seen, rejects Darwinism, and inclines to themutation theory of De Vries. ) The vast majority of Darwinians must, therefore, be classed as "enthusiasts" who are not "reasonableadvocates of the descent theory. " For has not Professor Marsh told hisreaders that "to doubt evolution is to doubt science?" And similarassertions have been so frequently made and reiterated by Darwiniansthat the claim that Darwinism has become a dogma contains, as ProfessorMorgan notes, more truth than the adherents of that school findpleasant to hear. 

More interesting, however, than Huxley's geological pedigree of thehorse is Haeckel's geological pedigree of man. One who reads Haeckel's_Natural History of Creation_ can hardly escape the impression thatthe author had actually seen specimens of each of the twenty-oneancestral forms of which his pedigree of man is composed. Such, however, was not the case. Quatrefages, speaking of this wonderfulgenealogical tree which Haeckel has drawn up with such scientificaccuracy of description, observes: "The first thing to remark is that_not one_ of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever beenseen, either living or in fossil. Their existence is based entirelyupon theory. " (_Les Emules de Darwin_, ii. _p. _ 76). "Man's pedigree asdrawn up by Haeckel, " says the distinguished savant, Du Bois-Reymond, "is worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for criticalhistorians. "

In constructing his genealogies Haeckel has frequent recourse to hiscelebrated "Law of Biogenesis. " The "Law of Biogenesis" which is thedignified title Haeckel has given to the discredited recapitulationtheory, asserts that the embryological development of the individual(ontogeny), is a brief recapitulation, a summing up, of the stagesthrough which the species passed in the course of its evolution in thegeologic past, (phylogeny). Ontogeny is a brief recapitulation ofphylogeny. This, says Haeckel, is what the "fundamental Law ofBiogenesis" teaches us. (The reader of Haeckel and other Darwinianswill frequently find laws put forward to establish facts: whereas othermen of science prefer to have facts establish laws). When, therefore, as Quatrefages remarks, the transition between the types which Haeckelhas incorporated into his genealogical tree, appears too abrupt, heoften betakes himself to ontogeny and describes the embryo in thecorresponding interval of development. This description he inserts inhis genealogical mosaic, by virtue of the "Law of Biogenesis. "

Many theories have been constructed to explain the phenomena ofembryological development. Of these the simplest and least mystical isthat of His in the great classic work on embryology, "UnsereKoerperform. " His tells us: "In the entire series of forms which adeveloping organism runs through, each form is the necessary antecedentstep of the following. If the embryo is to reach the complicatedend-form, it must pass, step by step, through the simpler ones. Eachstep of the series is the physiological consequence of the precedingstage, and the necessary condition for the following. " But whatevertheory be accepted by men of science, it is certainly not that proposedby Haeckel. Carl Vogt after giving Haeckel's statement of the "Law ofBiogenesis" wrote: "This law which I long held as well-founded, isabsolutely and radically false. " Even Oskar Hertwig, perhaps the bestknown of Haeckel's former pupils, finds it necessary to changeHaeckel's expression of the biogenetic law so that "a contradictioncontained in it may be removed. " Professor Morgan, finally, rejectsHaeckel's boasted "Law of Biogenesis" as "_in principle, false_. "And he furthermore seems to imply that Fleischmann merits the reproachof men of science, for wasting his time in confuting "the antiquatedand generally exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel. "

"Antiquated and generally exaggerated views. " Such is the comment ofscience on Haeckel's boast that Darwin's pre-eminent service to scienceconsisted in pointing out how purposive adaptations may be produced bynatural selection without the direction of mind just as easily as theymay be produced by artificial selection and human design. And yet thelatest and least worthy production from the pen of this Darwinianphilosopher, _The Riddle of the Universe_, is being scatteredbroad-cast by the anti-Christian press, in the name and guise of_popular_ science. It is therein that the evil consists. For thediscerning reader sees in the book itself, its own best refutation. Thepretensions of Haeckel's "consistent and monistic theory of the eternalcosmogenetic process" are best met by pointing to the fact that itsmost highly accredited and notorious representative has given to theworld in exposition and defense of pure Darwinian philosophy, a work, which, for boldness of assertion, meagerness of proof, inconsequence ofargument, inconsistency in fundamental principles and disregard forfacts which tell against the author's theory, has certainly no equal incontemporary literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of ProfessorPaulsen, the book "fairly drips with superficiality" (von Seichtigkeittriefen). If the man of science is to be justified, as Huxleysuggested, not by faith but by verification, Haeckel and his docileDarwinian disciples have good reason to tremble for their scientificsalvation. 

EDWIN V. O'HARA. 

St. Paul, Minn. 

_INTRODUCTION. _

During the last few years I have published under this title shortarticles dealing with the present status of Darwinism. In view of thekind reception which has been accorded to these articles by the readingpublic I have thought it well to bring them together in pamphlet form. Indeed, the Darwinian movement and its present status are eminentlydeserving of consideration, especially on the part of those before whomDarwinism has hitherto always been held up triumphantly as a scientificdisproof of the very foundations of the Christian faith. 

By way of introduction and explanation some general preliminary remarksmay not be amiss here. Previous to twenty or thirty years ago, it wasjustifiable to identify Darwinism with the doctrine of Descent, for atthat time Darwinism was the only doctrine of Descent which could claimany general recognition. Consequently, one who was an adherent of thedoctrine of Descent was also a Darwinian. Those to whom this did notapply were so few as to be easily counted. The dispute then hingedprimarily on Darwinism; hence, for those who did not admit the truth ofthat 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 afew clear-sighted naturalists (Wigand, Naegeli, Koelliker and others)who saw plainly the residue of truth that would result from thediscussion. But to the overwhelming majority, the alternatives seemedto be: Either Darwinism or no evolution at all. Today, however, thestate of things is considerably altered. The doctrine of Descent isclearly and definitely distinguished from Darwinism at least by themajority of naturalists. It is therefore of the utmost importance thatthis luminous distinction should likewise become recognized in laycircles. 

My object in these pages is to show that Darwinism will soon be a thingof the past, a matter of history; that we even now stand at itsdeath-bed, while its friends are solicitous only to secure for it adecent burial. 

Out of the chaos of controversy which has obtained during the last fourdecades there has emerged an element of truth--for there lurks a germof truth in most errors--which has gained almost universal recognitionamong contemporary men of science, namely, the doctrine of Descent. Thefact that living organisms form an ascending series from the lessperfect to the more perfect; the further fact that they also form aseries according as they display more or less homology of structure andare formed according to similar types; and, lastly, that the fossilremains of organisms found in the various strata of the earth's surfacelikewise represent an ascending series from the simple to the morecomplex--these three facts suggested to naturalists the thought thatliving organisms were not always as we find them to-day, but that themore perfect had developed from simpler forms through a series ofmodifications. These thoughts were at first advanced with somehesitation, and were confined to narrow circles. They received, however, material support when, during the fourth decade of the 19thcentury the splendid discovery was made (by K. E. Von Baer) that everyorganism is slowly developed from a germ, and in the process ofdevelopment passes through temporary lower stages to a permanent higherone. Even at that time many naturalists believed in a correspondingdevelopment of the whole series of organisms, without of course beingable to form a clear conception of the process. Such was the state ofaffairs when Darwin in the year 1859 published his principal work, _The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_. In thiswork for the first time an exhaustive attempt was made to sketch aclear and completely detailed picture of the process of development. 

Darwin started with the fact that breeders of animals and growers ofplants, having at their disposal a large number of varieties, alwaysdiverging somewhat from each other, choose individuals possessingcharacteristics which they desired to strengthen, and use only thesefor procreation. In this manner the desired characteristic is graduallymade more prominent, and the breeder appears to have obtained a newspecies. Similar conditions are supposed to prevail in Nature, onlythat there is lacking the selecting hand of the breeder. Here theso-called principle of Natural Selection holds automatic sway by meansof the Struggle for Existence. All the various forms of life arewarring for the means of subsistence, each striving to obtain foritself the best nourishment, etc. In this struggle those organisms willbe victorious which possess the most favorable characteristics; allothers must succumb. Hence those only will survive which are bestadapted to their environment. But between those which survive, thestruggle begins anew, and when the favoring peculiarities become morepronounced in some, (by chance, of course) these in turn win out. ThusNature gradually improves her various breeds through the continuedaction of a self-regulating mechanism. Such are the main features ofDarwinism, its real kernel, about which of course, --and this is a proofof its insufficiency, --from the very beginning a number of auxiliaryhypotheses attached themselves. 

Darwin's theory sounds so clear and simple, and seems at first blush soluminous that it is no wonder if many careful naturalists regarded itas an incontrovertible truth. The warning voice of the more prudent menof science was silenced by the loud enthusiasm of the youngergeneration over the solution of the greatest of the world-problems: thegenesis of living beings had been brought to light, and--a thing whichadmitted of no doubt--man as well as the brute creation was a productof purely natural evolution. The doctrine which materialism had alreadyproclaimed with prophetic insight, had at length been irrefragablyestablished on a scientific basis: God, Soul and Immortality werecontemptuously relegated to the domain of nursery tales. What furtheruse was there for a God when, in addition to the Kant-Laplacian theoryof the origin of the planetary system, it had been discovered thatliving organisms had likewise evolved spontaneously? How could man whohad sprung from the irrational brute possess a soul? And thus, finally, disappeared the third delusion, the hope of immortality. For with deaththe functions of the body simply cease, as also do those of the brain, which people had foolishly believed to be something more than anaggregation of atoms. The body dissolves into its constituent elementsand serves in its turn to build up other organisms: but as a human bodyit all turns to dust nor 'leaves a wrack behind'. Thus Darwinism wasmade the basis first for a materialistic, and then for a monistic, viewof the world, and hence came to be rigorously opposed to every form ofTheism. But since, at that time, Darwinism was the only theory ofevolution recognized by the world of science, the opposition of theChristian world was directed not specifically against Darwinism, butagainst the theory of evolution as such. The wheat was rooted up withthe tares. 

I will not discuss here which of the two views concerning creation; theorigin of the world in one moment of time, or a gradual evolution ofthe world and its potentialities, is the more worthy of the creativepower of God. Manifestly the greatness and magnificence of creationwill in no way be compromised by the concept of evolution. This, ofcourse, is simply my opinion. Any further statement would be out ofplace here. 

But what is the Darwinian position?

It is merely a special form of the evolutionary theory, one of thevarious attempts to explain how the process of development actuallytook place. Darwinism as understood in the following chapters possessesthe following characteristic traits:

(1) Evolution began and continues without the aid or intervention of aCreator. 

(2) In the production of Variations there is no definite law; Chancereigns supreme. 

(3) There is no indication of purpose or finality to be detectedanywhere in the evolutionary process. 

(4) The working factor in evolution is Egoism, a war of each againsthis fellows: this is the predominating principle which manifests itselfin Nature. 

(5) In this struggle the strongest, fleetest and most cunning willalways prevail, (the Darwinian term "fittest" has been the innocentsource of a great deal of error). 

(6) Man, whether you regard his body or his mind, is nothing but ahighly developed animal. 

A careful examination of Darwinism shows that these are the necessarypresuppositions, or, if you will, the inevitable consequences of thattheory. To accept that theory is to repudiate the Christian view of theworld. The truth of the above propositions is utterly incompatible, notonly with any religious views, but with our civil and social principlesas well. 

The most patent facts of man's moral life, however, cannot be explainedon any such hypothesis, and the logic of events has already shown thatDarwinism could never have won general acceptance but for theincautious enthusiasm of youth which intoxicated the minds of therising generation of naturalists and incapacitated them for theexercise of sober judgment. To show that there is among contemporarymen of science a healthy reaction against Darwinism is the object ofthis treatise. 

The reader may now ask, What, then, is your idea of evolution? Itcertainly is easier to criticise than to do constructive work. Anhonest study of nature, however, inevitably leads us to the conclusionthat the final solution of the problem is still far distant. Many astone has already been quarried for the future edifice of evolution byunwearied research during the last four decades. But in opposition toDarwinism it may, at the present time, be confidently asserted that anyfuture doctrine of evolution will have to be constructed on thefollowing basic principles:

(1) All evolution is characterized by finality; it proceeds accordingto a definite plan, and tends to a definite end. 

(2) Chance and disorder find no place in Nature; every stage of theevolutionary process is the result of law-controlled factors. 

(3) Egoism and struggle among living organisms are of very subordinateimportance in comparison with co-operation and social action. 

(4) The soul of man is an independent substance, and entirelyunintelligible as a mere higher stage of development of animalinstinct. 

A theory of evolution, however, resting on these principles cannotdispense 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 logicand the burdensome fetters of strict method, and mounting thelight-caparisoned steed of philosophic science, soared into theempyrean, high above the laborious path of ordinary mortals. One maynot take offense if even the most sedate citizen, for the sake of achange, occasionally kicks over the traces, provided only that hereturns in due time to his wonted course. And now in the domain ofBiology, one is led to think that the time has at length arrived forputting an end to mad masquerade pranks and for returning withoutreserve to serious and sober work, to find satisfaction therein. " Withthese words did the illustrious Wigand, twenty-five years ago, concludethe preface to the third volume of his large classical work againstDarwinism. True, he did not at that time believe that the mad campaignof Darwinism had already ended to its own detriment, but he alwayspredicted with the greatest confidence that the struggle would soonterminate in victory for the anti-Darwinian camp. When Wigand closedhis eyes in death in 1896, he was able to bear with him theconsciousness that the era of Darwinism was approaching its end, andthat he had been in the right. 

Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain thanthat Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seenits day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decadeshence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine ofDescent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were inmany respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that timetook possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to themas the excitement attending some mad revel. 

A justification of our hope that Wigand's warning prediction willfinally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact that to-day the youngergeneration of naturalists is departing more and more from Darwinism. Itis a fact worthy of special mention that the opposition to Darwinismto-day comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists, whereas thirtyyears ago large numbers of zoologists from Jena associated themselveswith the Darwinian school, hoping to find there a full and satisfactorysolution for the profoundest enigmas of natural science. 

The cause of this reaction is not far to seek. There was at the time awhole group of enthusiastic Darwinians among the university professors, Haeckel leading the van, who clung to that theory so tenaciously andwere so zealous in propagating it, that for a while it seemedimpossible for a young naturalist to be anything but a Darwinian. Thenthe inevitable reaction gradually set in. Darwin himself died, theDarwinians of the sixties and seventies lost their pristine ardor, andmany even went beyond Darwin. Above all, calm reflection took the placeof excited enthusiasm. As a result it has become more and more apparentthat the past forty years have brought to light nothing new that is ofany value to the cause of Darwinism. This significant fact has arouseddoubts as to whether after all Darwinism can really give a satisfactoryexplanation of the genesis of organic forms. 

The rising generation is now discovering what discerning scholars hadalready recognized and stated a quarter of a century ago. They are alsoreturning to a study of the older opponents of Darwinism, especially ofWigand. It is only now, many years after his death, that a tribute hasbeen paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately wasgrudgingly withheld during his life. One day recently there was laidbefore his monument in the Botanical Garden of Marburg a laurel-wreathwith the inscription: "To the great naturalist, philosopher and man. "It came from a young zoologist at Vienna who had thoroughly masteredWigand's great anti-Darwinian work, an intelligent investigator who hadset to work in the spirit of Wigand. Another talented zoologist, HansDriesch, dedicates to the memory of Wigand two books in rapidsuccession and reprehends the contemporaries of that master of sciencefor ignoring him. O. Hammann abandons Darwinism for an internalprinciple of development. W. Haacke openly disavows Darwinism; and evenat the convention of naturalists in 1897, L. Wilser was allowed toassert without contradiction that, "anyone who has committed himself toDarwinism can no longer be ranked as a naturalist. "

These are all signs which clearly indicate a radical revolution, andthey 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 notalone in this movement. Many of the older men of science are swellingthe current. We shall recall here only the greatest of those whom wemight mention in this connection. 

Julius von Sachs, the most gifted and brilliant botanist of the lastcentury, who unfortunately is no longer among us, was in the sixties anoutspoken Darwinian, as is evident especially from his History ofBotany 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 fromDarwinism. As years went by, Sachs drifted more and more from hisearlier position, and Wigand was of opinion that to himself should beascribed the credit of bringing about the change. During his last yearsSachs had become bitterly opposed to Darwinism, and in his masterly"Physiological Notes" he took a firm stand on the "internal factors ofevolution. "

During recent years I had the pleasure of occasional correspondencewith Sachs. On the 16th of September, 1896, he wrote me: For more thantwenty years I have recognized that if we are to build up a strictlyscientific theory of organic structural processes, we must separate thedoctrine of Descent from Darwinism. It was with this intention that heworked during the last years of his life and it is to be hoped that hisschool will continue his researches with this aim in view. 

The tendency among naturalists to return to Wigand is well exemplifiedin an article contributed to the "Preussischen Jahrbuecher" forJanuary, 1897, by Dr. Karl Camillo Schneider, assistant at thezoological Institute of the University of Vienna. This article which isentitled The Origin of Species, pursues Wigand's train of thoughtthroughout, and whole sentences and even paragraphs are taken verbatimfrom his main work. This, at all events, is a very instructiveindication of the present tendency which deserves prominence: and itssignificance becomes more evident when we recall how the work of Wigandwas received by the non-christian press a quarter of a century ago. Itwas either ridiculed or ignored. The two methods of treatment wereapplied to his writings which are always readily employed when thecritic has nothing pertinent to say. It is interesting to note thatDarwin himself employed this method. Wigand once told me that he hadsent Darwin a copy of his work and had addressed a letter to him at thesame time merely stating that he had sent the book, making no referenceto the line of thought contained in it. Darwin answered immediately inthe kindest manner that he had not as yet received the book, but whenit 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 worksappeared, the work of Wigand, the most comprehensive answer to Darwinever written, was passed over without even a passing mention. ThusDarwin completely ignored his keenest antagonist. 

As has been said, the majority of those who wrote about Wigandridiculed him: very few regarded him seriously, and even these indulgedchiefly in personal recriminations. Thus matters stood twenty-fiveyears ago. Wigand's prediction passed unheeded. That a periodical nothaving a specifically Christian circle of readers should now publish acondemnation of Darwinism entirely in accordance with the views ofWigand, is a fact which indicates a notable change of sentiment duringthe intervening years. I should not be at all astonished if many whosneered at Wigand twenty years ago, now read the article in thePreussischen Jahrbuecher with entire approval. Ill-will towards Wigandhas not altogether disappeared even to-day. This is evident from thefact that as yet Dr. Schneider does not venture to defend Wigandpublicly, nor to acknowledge him as his principal authority. We must becontent, however, if only, the truth will finally prevail. 

CHAPTER II. 

Striking testimony relative to the present position of Darwinism isborne by the Strasburg zoologist, Dr. Goette, who has won fame by hisinvaluable 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 theoutset Goette indicates the distinction between Darwinism and thedoctrine of Descent, and then points out that the distinguishingfeatures of the former consist not so much in the three facts ofHeredity, Variation, and Over-production, but rather in Selection, Survival of the Fittest, and also in that mystical theory ofheredity--the doctrine of Pangenesis--which is peculiarly Darwinian. Since this theory of Pangenesis has found no adherents, the questionmay henceforth be restricted to the doctrine of natural selection. ThisGoette very well observes. 

He points, moreover, to the fact that the misgivings that wereentertained concerning the doctrine of natural selection on its firstappearance, were, on the whole, precisely the same as they are to-day;only with this difference, that formerly they were disregarded bynaturalists whose clearness of vision was obscured by excessiveenthusiasm; whereas, to-day men have again returned to their sobersenses and lend their attention more readily to objections. 

Goette recalls the fact that M. Wagner tried to supplement naturalselection with his "Law of Migration, " and that later on, Romanes andGulick endeavored to supply the evident deficiencies in Darwin'stheory, by invoking other principles; and that even at that time, Askenasy, Braun, and Naegeli--and more recently, the lately deceasedEimer--insisted on the fact of definitely ordered variations, inopposition to the theory of Selection. 

Many naturalists recognize the difficulties but do not abandon thetheory of Selection, thinking that some supplementary principle wouldsuffice to make it acceptable: many others refuse to decide either foror against Darwinism and maintain towards it an attitude ofindifference. The younger investigators, however, are utterly opposedto it. "There can be no doubt that since its first appearance theinfluence of Darwinism on men's minds has notably diminished, althoughthe theory has not been entirely discarded. "--But the very fact thatthe younger naturalists are hostile to it, makes it evident thatDarwinism has a still darker future in store for it: that sooner orlater it will come to possess a merely historical interest. 

"The present position of Darwinism, " says Goette, "is characterizedespecially by the uncertainty of criticism which is unable to declaredefinitely in favor of either side. " Goette finds the chief cause ofthis uncertainty in the fact "that men of science (even Darwin himself)have widened the concept of selection as a means of originating newspecies through the interaction of individuals in the same species, soas to express the mutually antagonistic relations existing betweenseveral such species. " The latter alone is subject to experimentalverification, but it can only cause the isolation of existing forms andis not a species-originating selection--with which alone we are hereconcerned. This kind of selection can enfeeble the existing flora andfauna, but cannot produce a new species. Selection productive of newspecies "is not actually demonstrable; it is a purely theoreticalinvention. "

Goette next points out that the investigator is everywhere confrontedby definitely-directed variation: a fact which does not harmonize withthe theory of selection, nor, consequently with Darwinism. If somescientists have not as yet accepted Eimer's presentation of thisdoctrine, their action is most probably to be attributed to the fearlest "they should have to accept not merely, variation according todefinite laws, but likewise a principle of finality and other causeslying beyond the range of scientific investigation. " The rejection ofthe theory of selection often promotes, as Goette rightly observes, areactionary tendency towards _a priori_ explanations of phenomenawith which we are but slightly acquainted. "There are naturalists whodo not discard the theory of selection simply because it seems tofurnish 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 utilityand extend the idea of finality to the general capacity of organisms topersist. Thus adaptation becomes a principle which transcends thelimits of natural science and pervades the whole domain of life. Goetteobserves that Darwin spoke of useful, less useful and indifferentorganisms, by which he meant those adaptations destined for particularvital functions which tend to make the organs more and morespecialized. Since the ability to live is threatened by thisspecialization it cannot be purposive. This is not wholly true, becausethe more specialized the individual organ becomes, the more perfect isthe whole organism which is composed of these specialized organs. Thefunctions of the individual organ may be restricted, but the power ofthe entire organism is notably increased, according to the law of thedivision of labor. Goette therefore has not sufficient grounds forrejecting this expression. He considers that a real and permanentpurpose for the individual living forms is out of the question, butthat this purpose may be sought for in the development and history ofthe collective life of nature. Definitely ordered variation, he thinks, a scientific explanation of which is indeed yet forthcoming, willexplain adaptation equally as well as does selection. After what hasbeen said this statement of Goette must come as a surprise, for onewould think that according to his view definite variation explainsadaptations better than selection. Goette sums up his main conclusionin the following words: "The doctrine of Heredity or of Descent, whichcomes from Lamarck though it was first made widely known by Darwin, hassince continually gained a broader and surer foundation. But Darwin'sown doctrine regarding the causes and process of Descent which alonecan be called Darwinism, has on the other hand doubtlessly waned ininfluence and prestige. "

This is exactly what we also maintain: The establishment of the theoryof Descent in general, and the continual retrogression of Darwinism inparticular. Wigand was entirely right when he said that Darwinism wouldnot live beyond the century. 

We may, however, derive from the discussions of Goette something elsethat is of the highest importance, namely, an admission in which is tobe found the real and fundamental explanation of the conduct of themajority of naturalists who still cling to Darwinism. It does notconsist in the fact that they are convinced of the truth of Darwinismbut in their "reluctance to give up the mechanical explanation offinality proposed by Darwin, " or rather in the fear of being driven tothe recognition of theistic principles. With commendable candor Goetteattacks this method of keeping up a system notwithstanding itsrecognized deficiencies. Goette furthermore points out especially thatthis recognition is more widespread than one might be able to gatherfrom occasional discussions on the subject. 

From the account which Goette gives of the present status of Darwinismwe may safely conclude that Darwinism had entered upon a period ofdecay; it is in the third stage of a development through which many ascientific doctrine has already passed. 

The four stages of this development are the following:

1. The incipient stage: A new doctrine arises, the olderrepresentatives of the science oppose it partly because of keenerinsight and greater experience, partly also from indolence, not wishingto allow themselves to be drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium;among the younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in favorof the new doctrine. 

2. The stage of growth: the new doctrine continually gains greaterfavor among the young generation, finding vent in bursts of enthusiasm;some of the cautious seniors have passed away, others are carried alongby the stream of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge, andthe 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; depressionsucceeds intoxication. Now that the young men have themselves grownolder and become more sober, many things appear in a different light. The doubts already expressed by the old and prudent during the stage ofgrowth are now better appreciated and gradually increase in weight. Many become indifferent, the present younger generation becomesperplexed and discards the theory entirely. 

4. The final stage: the last adherents of the "new doctrine" are deador at least old and have ceased to be influential, they sit upon theruins of a grandeur that even now belongs to the "good old time. " Theinfluential and directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine, once soimportant and seemingly invincible, for the consideration of livingissues and the younger generation regards it as an interesting episodein the history of science. 

With reference to Darwinism we are in the third stage which ischaracterized especially by the indifference of the present middle-agedgeneration and by growing opposition on the part of the younger cominggeneration. This very characteristic feature is brought into prominenceby the discussion of Goette. If all signs, however, are not deceptive, this third stage, that of decay, is drawing to an end; soon we shallenter the final stage and with that the tragic-comedy of Darwinism willbe brought to a close. 

If some one were to ask me how according to the count of years, Ishould determine the extent of the individual stages of Darwinism, thiswould be my answer:

1. The incipient stage extends from 1859 (the year during whichDarwin's principal work, _The Origin of Species_, appeared) to theend of the sixties. 

2. The stage of growth: from that time, for about 20 years, to the endof 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 Ithink it may not be doubted that the fine weather, at least, has passedfor Darwinism. So having carefully scanned the firmament of science forsigns of the weather, I shall for once make a forecast for Darwinism, namely: Increasing cloudiness with heavy precipitations, indications ofa violent storm, which threatens to cause the props of the structure tototter, and to sweep it from the scene. 

CHAPTER III. 

As further witnesses to the passing of Darwinism, two botanists may becited; the first is Professor Korschinsky who in No. 24, 1899, of the_Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift_ published an article on"Heterogenesis and Evolution, " which was to be followed later by alarge work on this subject. With precision and emphasis he points tothe numerous instances in which there occurs on or in a plant, suddenlyand without intervention, a variation which may become hereditary undercertain circumstances; thus during the last century a number ofvarieties of garden plants have been evolved. On the basis of suchexperiments Korschinsky developed the theory which had been proposed byKoelliker in Wuerzburg thirty years earlier, namely, the theory of"heterogeneous production" or "heterogenesis, " as Korschinsky calls it. When one understands that a plant gives rise suddenly and without anyintervention to a grain of seed, which produces a different plant, itbecomes evident that all Darwinistic speculations about selection andstruggle for existence are forthwith absolutely excluded. The effectcan proceed only from the internal vital powers inherent in thespecified organism acting in connection, perhaps, with the internalconditions of life, which suddenly exert an influence in a newdirection. 

Korschinsky distinguishes clearly and definitely between the principlesof Heterogenesis and Transmutation (gradual transformation throughnatural selection in the struggle for existence), and in so doing comesto a complete denial of Darwinism. 

The other naturalist who has dealt Darwinism a telling blow is thebotanist of Graz, Professor Haberlandt. 

He published some very interesting observations and experiments in the"Festschrift fuer Schwendener" (Berlin 1899, Borntraeger). They areconcerned with a Liane javas of the family of mulberry plants(Conocephalus ovatus. ) The free leaves possess under the outer layer, atissue composed of large, thin-walled, water-storing cells; flatcavities on the upper side, having, furthermore, organs that secretewater, which the botanist calls hydathodes. These are delicate, small, glandular cells over which are the bundles of vascular fibres(leaf-veins) that convey the water to them; over these in the top layerare so-called water-crevices through which the water can force itselfto the outside. It is unnecessary to enter upon a closer explanation ofthe anatomical structure of these peculiar organs. The water which isforced upward by the root-pressure of the plant is naturally conveyedthrough the vascular fibres into the leaves and at every hydathode thesuperfluous water oozes out in drops, a phenomenon which one can alsovery nicely observe e. G. On the "Lady's cloak" (Alchemilla vulgaris) ofthe German flora. A portion of the night-dew must be attributed to thissecretion of water. On the Liane, then, Haberlandt observed a veryconsiderable secretion of water: a full-grown leaf secreted during onenight 2. 76 g. Of water (that is 26 per cent. Of its own weight. )Through this peculiarity the water supply within the plant is regulatedand the danger avoided that any water should penetrate the surroundingtissue in consequence of strong root-pressure, --which would naturallyobstruct the vital function of the entire leaf. Besides it is to benoticed that in this way an abundant flow of water is produced: theplant takes up large quantities of water from the earth, laden withnutritive salts, and the distilled water is almost pure (it containsonly 0. 045 g. Salts), so that the nutritive salts are absorbed by theplant. 

From these considerations it necessarily appears that the hydathodesare of great biological importance to the plant. 

Haberlandt then "poisoned" the plant, by sprinkling it with a 0. 1 percent sublimate solution of alcohol. The purpose of this experiment wasto ascertain whether in the secretion of water there was question of amerely physical process or of a vital process. In the first case theaction of the hydathode should continue even after the treatment withthe sublimate solution, while in the latter case it should not. As thesecretion ceased the obvious conclusion to be deduced from thisexperiment is that the hydathodes do not act as purely mechanicalfiltration-apparatuses, as one might have thought, but that there ishere evidence of an active vital process in the plant; the unusual term"poisoning" is therefore really justified under present circumstances. 

Let me dwell for a moment on this result, for, although it may besomewhat foreign to our present purpose and to the further observationsof Haberlandt, it is very significant in itself. The water moves in theplant in closed cells, as the cells of the aqueous gland are entirelyclosed, but the organic membrane, as every one knows, has the peculiarphysical property of allowing water to pass through, the pressure, ofcourse, being applied on the side of least resistance; when thereforethe water is forced into the cells by root-pressure, it is easilyintelligible that according to purely physical laws it should come tothe surface of the leaf on the side of the least resistance, that is, by way of the water-crevices. Even the defenders of "vital force" wouldnot find any reason in this for not considering the phenomenon ofdistillation in this case a purely physical phenomenon. And stillaccording to Haberlandt's experiments it is not. The sublimate could atmost only impede the process of filtration, but should under nocircumstances have destroyed it. But it does destroy it, and thehydathode dies. The conclusion certainly follows from this that thisprocess is connected with some vital function. Even if the hydathode istreated with sublimate solution, all the conditions for mechanicalfiltration still remain: the earth has moisture which can be taken upby the roots so that root-pressure still exists. The water is in allcases conveyed to the hydathodes through the vascular fibres, the cellwalls of the hydathodes are still adapted for filtration, and yet theydo not filter. Hence some other factor must join itself to thephysico-mechanical process of filtration and affect or destroy it, andthis factor can be found only in the protoplasm, the vital element ofthe cells; for we know that the sublimate acts with pernicious effecton it and in such a manner that it destroys its entire power ofreaction; it kills it, as we say. 

The experiment under discussion has, therefore, great significance forour view of the vital processes in the plant; it proves beyond doubtthat these processes are in no way of a purely mechanical nature, butthat there is something underlying all this, a hitherto inexplicablesomething, which we call "life. " In all vital activities, physical andchemical processes certainly do occur; they do not, however, take placespontaneously but are made use of by the vital element of the plant toproduce an effect that is desirable or necessary for the vital activityof the plant. If the vital element is dead, no matter how favorable theconditions may be for chemical and physical processes, these do nottake place and the effect necessary for life is not obtained. It isvery remarkable after all that according to the experiment ofHaberlandt this peculiar relation should become apparent in a processthat is so open to our investigation as the filtration of water throughthe cell-wall of a plant. 

After what has been said I consider this simple experiment ofHaberlandt of great significance; for it is a direct proof of theexistence of a vital force. One may resist to his heart's content, butwithout avail; vital force is again finding its way into science. Moreand more cognizance is being taken of the fact that 60 and 70 years agopeople jumped at conclusions very imprudently when they believed thatthe first artificial preparation of organic matter (urea, by Woehler)had proven the non-existence of a vital force. Since then there hasbeen great rejoicing in the camp of materialists who scoffed at the"ignorant" who would not as yet forsake vital force. "Behold, " theysaid, "in the chemist's retort the same matter is produced chemicallythat is produced in the body of the animal, without the direction of ahidden vital force, which, if it is not necessary in the one case, neither is it necessary in the other. " Any one who had given the mattercareful consideration could even at that time have known where the"ignorant" really were. That in both cases chemical processes takeplace is clear and undisputed, but the materialists forgot entirelythat even in the laboratory it was not the mere contact of the elementsthat produced the urea; a chemist was needed and in this case not anyone arbitrarily chosen, but a man of the genius and knowledge of aWoehler to watch over the process, and utilize and partly direct thelaws of chemistry in order to obtain the desired result. Hence it waseven then absurd to deny vital force as a consequence of thatexperiment. Since, however, it was well-adapted for materialisticpurposes, this denial was proclaimed with the sound of trumpetthroughout the land, and repeated again and again with surprisingtenacity, with the result that even thoughtful investigators rejectedvital force almost universally in the seventies and eighties. 

It has always been a problem to me how this could have happened. Itcan, indeed, be explained only on the supposition that naturalists wereadverse to the introduction of anything into nature, that appeared tothem mystical and mysterious. Nor is such a procedure at all necessary:vital force is by no means a mysterious, ghostly power that soars abovenature, but a force of nature like its other forces, as mysterious andas definite as they are, only that it dominates a specified group ofbeings, namely, living organisms. It may readily be compared with anyother natural phenomenon. For instance, the phenomenon of crystallizationhas its well determined sphere of activity, viz. , the mineral world. Itemploys definite mathematico-physical laws to obtain a specifiedresult, and even acts differently in different mineral substances in sofar as it produces in the one case this, in the other case that form;but still it should be a similarly directed force which has the effectof producing these peculiar forms. Precisely similar is it with vitalforce. It has its determined sphere of activity, the kingdom of livingorganisms; it acts according to definite physico-chemical laws inproducing a specified result; it acts differently in different livingorganisms; it is therefore a force of nature as clear yet as mysteriousas the force of crystallization or as any other force of nature. Henceone has no cause to complain of its mysteriousness, for all otherforces of nature are just as much, or if you will, just as littlemysterious as vital force. The only thing to be maintained is this, that living organisms are dominated by a special force with specialphenomena and special activities, even as in mineral substances thereis a special dominant force which produces special phenomena andexercises special activities. 

It is possible to produce crystals in the laboratory, but no one willbe so foolish as to maintain that in nature crystals are not formed inconsequence of a very definite force inherent in the mineral-substances;nor will any one deny the existence of the force of crystallizationbecause it does not appear in living organisms. 

Nor have I ever despaired of a return of the theory of vital force. Achange of opinion has really taken place during this decade; at presentthe voices for a vital force are constantly growing stronger and itwill most probably not be very long before it will be again universallyrecognized, not as something preternatural, of course, but as a forceof nature on an equal footing with the other forces of nature, withactivities, just as mysterious and just as well-attested as theactivities of the other forces of nature. 

Haberlandt's experiment, however, had also an indirect consequence thatis of far-reaching importance. He observed that within a few days newwater-secreting organs of an entirely different structure and ofdifferent origin were formed on the leaves that had been sprinkled withsublimate. Over the bundles of vascular fibres, little knots as largeas a pin head arose in larger numbers out of a tissue underlying thetop layer; out of these the water now oozed every morning. Closerinvestigation disclosed the fact that these organs develop only onyoung immature leaves where groups of peculiar, perishable gland-hairsare found; beneath these dead mucous glands the substitute secretiveorgans originate in the inner tissue. It is of no importance to statein what particular cells they originate. 

Suffice it to say that they are colorless capillary tubes originatingin various cells; projecting like the hairs of a brush, containingliving protoplasm and evanescent chlorophyll. It is also importantto note that this new organ is immediately connected with thewater-conducting system consisting of bundles of vascular fibres. Haberlandt furthermore indicates especially that these organs whenviewed in connection with the process of secretion give evidence of anactive vital principle as well as of simple mechanical filtration. 

These substitute organs are all indeed well adapted to their purposeand adequately replace the old secretive organs, but they so easily dryout and are so little protected that after a week they become parchedand die because wound-cork forms under them. The leaf no longerproduces new hydathodes, but on its lower side it produces growths thatfunction as vesicles, by means of which it continues to sustain itself. 

Haberlandt furthermore records a phenomenon perhaps analogous to thison the grape-vine, but with this exception the case described by him isunique. In order to pass any further judgment regarding it, we shouldhave to ascertain whether the whole phenomenon is not a case ofso-called adaptation; if so, processes should be found in nature, analogous to the poisoning of the hydathodes in this experiment, whichresult in the destruction of the hydathodes so that in consequence theplant would have gained the power of making good the loss, by means ofthe substitute organs. Such processes, however, (even through poisoningor through parasites) would be very highly improbable. Equallyincredible is the alternative possibility that the new organs would beproduced by the plant not as a substitute but as a supplementaryapparatus when the old ones would not suffice for secretion in case ofvery large absorption of water. This also must doubtlessly be rejected, as Haberlandt has observed. 

Powers of adaptation should, of course, according to Darwinism, begradually acquired in the struggle for existence, as in that case theyshould also have stability; but since this is not possessed by the neworgans, the presumption is that they do not possess the character ofadaptation. They are therefore new organs that originated after anentirely unnatural and unforeseen interference with the normal vitalfunctions and in consequence of a self-regulating activity of theorganism. 

What then is there in the whole phenomenon worthy of notice with regardto the theory of Descent?

1. An immediately well adapted new organ has here originated verysuddenly without any previous incipient formation, without gradualperfection and without stages of transition. 

2. In its formation struggle for existence and natural selection areentirely excluded, neither can find any application whatever evenaccording to the newer exposition of Weismann. Haberlandt himself drawsthis conclusion. 

3. If this phenomenon of a suddenly appearing change can take place inthe course of the development of the individual, there can be noobvious reason why it should not take place in the same manner (withoutnatural selection or struggle for existence) in the course of thephylogenetic development. 

It is manifestly of the greatest importance that in this case a direct, experimental proof has been given that an organ has originated suddenlyand without the aid of Darwinian principles. Haberlandt's article isnothing less than a complete renunciation of Darwinism on the part ofHaberlandt, a renunciation which we greet with great satisfaction. 

In fact one such observation would really suffice to set asideDarwinism and prove the utter insufficiency of its principles to giveexplanation of the origin of natural species. On the other hand, thisobservation plainly proves two things: first, that the above mentioneddoctrine of Koelliker, now held by Korschinsky is a move in the rightdirection for the discovery of the causes of descent; and secondly, that the principal cause of the evolution is not to be sought inenvironment and blind forces but in the systematically working, internal vital principle in plants and animals. With that, however, animportant part of the foundation of the mechanical-materialistic viewof the world is demolished. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Since we have heard the verdict of zoologists and botanists concerningDarwinism, it is but right that we should now listen to apalaeontologist, a representative of the science, which investigatesthe petrified records of the earth's surface, and strives to collectinformation regarding the world of life during remote, by-gone ages ofthe earth. It is evident to every-one that the verdict of this sciencemust be of very special importance in passing on the question of thedevelopment of living organisms. Darwin himself recognized this at theoutset. He and his followers, however, soon perceived that, while therevelations of palaeontology were on the whole favorable to thedoctrine of Descent, in so far as they proved the gradual change oforganization, in consecutive strata, from the simple to more complexforms, palaeontology revealed nothing that would sustain the Darwiniantheory as to the method of that development. As soon as the Darwinians, and first of all Darwin himself, perceived this, they at once broughtforward a very cheap subterfuge. Since Darwinism postulates a verygradual, uninterrupted development of living organisms, there must havebeen an immense number of transition-forms between any two animal orplant species which to-day, although otherwise related, are separatedby characteristic features. Consequently, on the Darwinian hypothesis, all of these transition-forms must have perished for the singularreason that other better organized forms overcame them in the strugglefor existence. If therefore the millions of transition-forms were stillmissing, and the known petrified forms of older strata of the earth didnot reveal them, the Darwinians were able to console themselves untilfrom 20 to 40 years ago, with the assertion that our knowledge wasstill too deficient, that a more thorough investigation of the earth'ssurface and especially of out-of-the-way parts would eventually bringto light the supposed transition forms. Such assertion affords verypoor consolation, and is anything but scientific. The method of naturalscience consists in establishing general principles on the basis of thematerials actually furnished by experiments and observation and not inexcogitating general laws and then consoling oneself with the thoughtthat while our knowledge of nature is as yet extremely imperfect, timewill furnish the actual material necessary to substantiate our guesses. But since then many a year has come and gone and Darwinism has caused, and for that alone it deserves credit, a diligent research in everyfield of natural science, and has promoted among palaeontologists asearch for the missing transition-forms. The materials of investigationfrom the field of palaeontology have also wonderfully increased duringthese decades. Hence it is worth while now at the dawn of the newcentury to examine this material with a view to its availableness forthe theory of Descent and especially for Darwinism. 

Professor Steinmann has recently done so in Freiburg in Breisgau, onthe occasion of an address as Rector of the University. Whatconclusions did he reach?

Steinmann declares it to be the primary task of post-Darwinianpalaeontology "to arrange the fossil animal and plant-remains in theorder of descent and thus to build up a truly natural, becausehistorically demonstrable, classification of the animal andplant-world. " At the outset it is to be noted that for various reasonspalaeontology is unable to execute this momentous task in its fullextent. The evidence of palaeontology is deficient, if for no otherreason than that many animal organisms could not be preserved at all onaccount of their soft bodies; many animal groups have, nevertheless, received an unusual increase (mollusks, radiata, fish, saurians, vertebrates, and dendroid plants). 

As regards the attempt made in the sixties to draw up lines of descent, Steinmann repudiates, without, of course, mentioning names, the familytree constructed by Haeckel and his associates as wholly hypotheticaland hence unjustified; he rightly remarks that their method smacks ofthe closet. He finds fault with them chiefly because they predicatedactuality of this imaginary family-tree and fancied that the historicalresearch of the future would have but isolated facts to establish. 

In speaking of the palaeontological research of the last few decades, Steinmann says: "In the light of recent research, fossil discoverieshave frequently appeared less intelligible and more ambiguous thanbefore, and in those cases in which an attempt has been made to bringthe descent-system into agreement with the actual facts, theincongruity between the two has become obvious. " Thus, for instance, the well-known archaeopteryx is not, as was maintained, a connectinglink between reptile and bird, but a member of a blindly ending sidebranch. In fact palaeontological research has proven incapable offinding the transitions between different species, clearly determinedby the theory. But the overwhelming abundance of matter called for newendeavors to master it. It was then further discovered--Steinmann findsan illustration of this fact in the echinodermata--that the well-known"fundamental law of biogenesis" of Haeckel can be accepted only in avery restricted sense and may even lead to conclusions absolutelyfalse. We desire to remark here that a "fundamental principle" shouldnever mislead; if it does so, it is not a fundamental principle. 

It is of importance to know that according to palaeontologicalinvestigation, empiric systematizing and phylogenetic classification donot always coincide, as, for instance, in the case of the ammonites. Acording to palaeontological investigation the great systematiccategories are only grades of organization. Hence present daysystematizing is being more and more discarded, and the saidcategories--as indeed also the lesser groups of forms--must be ofpolyphyletic origin, that is, they must have descended from differentprimitive stocks. It may be asked: What bearing has this principle ofmultiple origins? For a long time reptiles were the predominatingvertebrates; when mammals and birds appeared, numerous, varied andstrange saurians inhabited land and sea; but "with the end of thechalk-period most saurians seem to have vanished suddenly from thescene, and soon we behold the mainlands and oceans inhabited by mammalsof most diverse kinds. " The saurians have become almost extinct and themammal-tribe suddenly shows a most extraordinary variability and powerof development. How is either phenomenon to be explained?

"The disappearance of a group of organisms has been preferablyexplained since the time of Darwin, by defeat in the struggle withsuperior competitors. If ever an explanation lacked pertinency, it doesso in this case, in which the succumbing group is represented bygigantic and well preserved animal forms, widely distributed andaccustomed to the most varied methods of nutrition, whereas thecompetitor appears in the form of small, harmless marsupials. It wouldbe equivalent to a struggle between the elephant and the mouse. "

We acknowledge with pleasure this clear rejection of Darwinism on thepart of Steinmann. 

Steinmann also rejects the natural extinction of those forms, perhapsfrom the weakness of old age; whether he is wholly warranted in doingso, seems somewhat doubtful. He tries to explain the phenomenon onthe basis of the multiple origin of the mammals; and in fact thereis already speculation regarding triple origin, viz: tambreets, marsupials, and the other mammals. Now if the latter also possessed amultiple origin, the problem of the extinction of the saurians would, according to Steinmann solve itself. One would not need to consider thenumber of extinct forms as large as is now done. However, he does notenter upon any closer consideration of this question. But he pointsout, for instance, that to-day the shells of mollusks (snails andconchylia) are regarded as structures that were acquired only in thecourse of time for the sake of protection, the disappearance of which, therefore, implied a disadvantage for the respective organisms. Thistransition would be something extraordinary--"but if on the contrary, one regards the shells as the necessary products of a special kind ofassimilation and of the immoveableness of certain parts of the body, the gradual disappearance might well be considered a process which maytake place in various animal-groups with a certain regularity in thecourse of the phyletic development. " The snails devoid of shells, forinstance, may be derived with certainty from those possessed of shells;this process has very probably also taken place in different geneticlines. 

This view is well worth consideration; it stands in sharp opposition, in fundamental principles, to the Darwinian explanation. This calls forspecial emphasis here. How should one explain the origin of uncrustedmollusks from crusted ones through the struggle for existence, since insuch a contest the latter must have had far greater prospect ofsurvival than the former?

This view together with the principle of multiple origin opens up, according to Steinmann, "the prospect of an altered conception of theprocess of formation of the organic world. " According to the newconception, the many extinct forms of antiquity are not, as Darwinsupposed, "unsuccessful attempts and continued aberrations ofnature"--how this reminds one of that old, naive, much-ridiculed ideathat fossils were models that God had discarded as unserviceable--butwould gain new life and assume hitherto unsuspected relationship to thepresent organic creation. 

"Science, which seeks after operative causes, at the beginning of thecentury regarded creation as a multiplicity of phenomena without anycausal connection as to their origin. Darwin taught as a fundamentalprinciple the unity and the causal inter-relation of creation, but wasnot entirely able to save this hypothesis from a violent and suddendeath. In the future sketch creation will appear as wholly restrictedin itself and lasting, the causes of its limitation lie, up to the timeof the intervention of men, solely in the balanced motion of the planetwhich it peoples. "

At the close of his address Steinmann points out that behind theproblem of the manner of development, there stands "the unsolvedquestion regarding its operative causes. " "Regarding this point, " hecontinues, "opinions have perhaps never been so divergent as they areto-day. The times have passed when the Darwinian explanations wereregarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrineof Descent. Not only are the adherents of Darwinian ideas divided amongthemselves, but the theory of Lamarck, somewhat altered, favored by theresults of historical investigation, appears more striking and nowseems more in harmony with facts than formerly. What is considered byone as the ruling factor in the evolution of organisms is regarded byanother as a "quantite negligeable" or even as the greatest mistake ofthe century. In this discord of opinions the principle of Descent aloneforms the stable pole. "

Thus Steinmann, and we can but applaud his conclusions with undisguisedpleasure, for they tend throughout in the direction of our anti-Darwinianview, and deal Darwinism another fatal blow. It is also worthy ofspecial note that this time the blow is dealt from the side ofpalaeontology; for, even if now and again we dissent from Steinmann, inthis we fully agree with him that the historical method of consideringthe evidences of bygone periods of creation is at the very least quiteas important for passing correct judgment regarding descent, as is theinvestigation of contemporary living organisms. Indeed, family-treeswere constructed without regard for palaeontology, almost exclusivelyfrom an examination of present conditions, and sometimes the author didnot even shrink from falsification. This procedure has been bitterlyrevenged and will take further revenge unless at length a definite endbe put to the family-tree nuisance and the respective books instead ofbeing published anew, be relegated to the lumber-room of science, thereto turn yellow amid dust and cobwebs--the curious evidence of grossfolly. But only have patience, even that time will come. 

The conclusions of Steinmann, that are most important for us, may besummarized as follows:

1. The family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology byDarwinism for its family-trees, constructed not empirically but _apriori_, are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials whichpalaeontological investigation has already produced. 

2. The results of the investigation do not correspond with the familygroups drawn up according to the so-called "biogenetic principle, "which principle has in fact led men of science into false paths. 

3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited validity, (we addthat later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism and its family treesinto the lumber-room). 

4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance, as theytestify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent ofmammals, everywhere contradict the Darwinian principle of the survivalof the fittest in the struggle for existence. 

5. "The time has long passed when the Darwinian explanations wereregarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrineof Descent. "

6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recognized; the "how"of it, its causes, are to-day entirely a matter of dispute. 

CHAPTER V. 

The strongest evidence of the decay of Darwinism is to be found in thefact that, since Darwin first enunciated his theory, many and diverseattempts have been made to explain the origin of species on otherprinciples. Names of men, like M. Wagner, Naegeli, Wigand, Koelliker, and Kerner mark these attempts; but of these investigators Naegelialone proposed a well-developed hypothesis. Finally, however, Eimer, professor of zoology in Tuebingen came forward with a detailed theoryof Descent. As early as 1888 he published a comprehensive work dealingwith it, under the title: "The Origin of Species by Means of theTransmission of Acquired Characters According to the Laws of OrganicGrowth. " As the title itself indicates, a very marked divergence waseven at that time manifesting itself between Eimer and his formerteacher and friend, the great defender of Darwinism in Germany, Aug. Weismann, professor of zoology in Freiburg in Breisgau. For, while thelatter vigorously attacks the transmission of acquired characters, Eimer's whole theory is founded on this very transmission. Observationsregarding the coloring of animals, in fact, form the basis of Eimer'stheory. 

Eimer attributes the origin of species to "organic growth" by which hemeans not merely increase in size, but also change of form, etc. Thisgrowth does not proceed blindly or aimlessly, but proceeds on rigidlydetermined lines, which depend upon the structure and constitution ofthe particular organism. External influences, however, also affect it. Eimer specially emphasizes four points in this connection: 1. Thisrigidly determined development of a character exhibits well defined, regular stages, and the evolution of each individual repeats the wholeseries of transformations (the Mueller-Haeckel "biogenetic-law. ") 2. New characters are first acquired by strong adult males (the law ofmale dominance). 3. New characters appear on definite parts of thebody, spreading especially from the rear to the front, (the law ofundulation). 4. Varieties are stages in the process of development, through which all the individuals of the respective species must pass. 

These points indicate how important for Eimer is the transmission ofthose characters which the parents themselves have acquired in thecourse of their own development. He conceives that this transmissiontakes place when the causative influences exert themselves permanentlyon many succeeding generations. Eimer thinks that in this way theconstitution of the respective species is gradually transformed. Besides the effect of external influences (which may vary according tothe climate, etc. : Geoffroy St. Hilaire), Eimer mentions as importantand active factors in this development, (1). The use and disuse oforgans (Lamarck); (2). The struggle for existence (Darwin); (3). Thecorrelation of organs, that is, the inner relation of organs inconsequence of which a change in one organ may occasion a sudden changein another organ; (4). Cross fertilization and hybridism. 

It is clear that with reference to the factors of evolution Eimer is, and perhaps not unreasonably, an eclectic, whose aim is to do justiceto the predecessors of Darwin as well as to Darwin himself. Hisantagonism to Darwin and Weismann in this work is still quite moderate, although even here it appears with sufficient clearness that selectionand the struggle for existence, the two principles peculiarlycharacteristic of Darwinism, do not give rise to new species, but canat best only separate and differentiate species already existing. 

The second part of Eimer's work dealing with the origin of species, which appeared after an interval of ten years, bears the title:"Orthogenesis of Butterflies. " The Origin of Species, II. Part (2tables and 235 illustrations in the text). Leipzig, 1897. In this booksubstantially the same thoughts occupy the mind of the author as in theformer volume, but in many respects they are more mature, andconspicuously more definite and precise. The most salient features arethe following:

1. Eimer establishes his theory by means of very minute observations ona definite species of animals, viz. , butterflies. 

2. He attributes evolution almost exclusively to development alongdefinitely determined lines. 

3. He proves the utter untenableness of Darwinian principles andrepudiates them unqualifiedly. 

4. In a very distinct and severe manner he gives expression to hisopposition to his former friend Weismann. 

5. He attacks with telling effect the fantastic Darwinian "Mimicry. "

In his "General Introduction" Eimer first treats of Orthogenesis inopposition to the Darwinian theory of selection. The very firstsentence gives evidence of this antagonism: "According to myinvestigation, organic growth (Organophysis), which is rendereddependent on the plasm by permanent external influences, climate andnourishment, and the expression of which is found in development alongdefinitely determined lines, (Orthogenesis), is the principal cause oftransformation, its occasional interruption and its temporary cessationand is likewise the principal cause of the division of the series oforganisms into species. "

Lamarck's theory of the use and disuse of organs and Darwin'shypothesis of natural selection are consequently pushed into thebackground. Here also Eimer at once places himself at variance withNaegeli who had enunciated a similar theory. Naegeli took as a startingpoint an inherent tendency in every being to perfect itself, thuspresupposing an "inner principle of development, " and making light ofexternal influences as transforming causes. Eimer flatly contradictsthis view. We shall revert to this point in our criticism of histheory. In opposition to the theory of selection, Eimer lays specialstress on the fact that its underlying assumption, viz. , fortuitous, indefinite variation in many different directions, is entirely devoidof foundation in fact, and that selection, in order to be effective, postulates the previous existence of the required useful characters, whereas the very point at issue is to explain how these characters haveoriginated. Since, therefore, according to Eimer's investigations, there are everywhere to be found only a few, definitely determinedlines of variation, selection is incapable of exercising any choice. The development, furthermore, proceeds without regard for utility, since, for instance, the features that characterize a species of plantsare out of all reference to utility. "Even if nothing exists that isessentially detrimental, nevertheless very much does exist that bearsno reference whatever to immediate good, and was therefore neveraffected by selection. "

Further on, Eimer expresses still more clearly the opposition of histheory to that of Darwin, and in so doing he attacks vigorously theomnipotence of selection, so unreasonably proclaimed by the followersof Darwin. Eimer's theory, consequently, asserts that: "The essentialcause of transmutation is organic growth, a definite variation, which, during long periods of time proceeds unswervingly and without referenceto utility, in but few directions and is conditioned by the action ofexternal influences, of climate and nourishment. " In consequence of aninterruption of orthogenesis a stoppage ensues in certain stages of thedevelopment, and this stoppage is the great cause of the arrangement offorms in different species. Of vital importance also "is developmentthrough different stages (Hetero-epistase), which results in thearrested development of certain characters in an organism, while othersprogress and still others become retrogressive. As a rule use anddisuse are of great efficacy in this regard, and conjointly with thesecompensation and correlation. " Occasionally also irregular developmentsets in, which proceeds by leaps. 

Of course, Eimer could not but in his turn burn incense before Darwinby declaring that he would not dare to cross swords with such a man, while in reality he repudiates all of Darwin's fundamental tenets. 

It may be well to state here in addition a few important supplementaryconsiderations: "Development can everywhere proceed in only a limitednumber of directions because the constitution, the material compositionof the body, conditions these directions and prevents variation in alldirections. " This is an important statement because Eimer clearlyexpresses therein the difference between his own theory and that ofNaegeli. He makes the direction of development dependent on thematerial composition of the body, whereas Naegeli considers itdependent upon an internal tendency of every being to perfect itself, hence upon a power inherent in the body. Eimer's view therefore tendstowards a mechanical explanation, while Naegeli postulates a vitalenergy. The "internal causes" according to Eimer find their explanationin the material composition of the body. Since the growth of theindividual organism depends on this composition and on the externalinfluences, Eimer compares family-development with it and designatesthe latter as "organic growth. " In opposition to Naegeli he maintainsthat this "organic growth" does not always aim at perfection but oftentends to simplification and retrogression. 

The following, then, according to Eimer, are the directive principlesof variation: (1). The general law of coloration (stripes runninglengthwise change into spots, stripes running crosswise change to auniform color). (2). The law of definitely directed local change (newcolors spread from the rear to the front and from above downward orvice versa, old colors disappear in the same directions. ) (3). The lawof male predominance (males are as a rule one step in advance of thefemales in development). Female predominance is an exception. (4). Thelaw of age-predominance (new characters appear at a well-advanced age, and at the time of greatest strength). (5). The law of wave-likedevelopment (during the course of the formation of the individualorganism a series of changes proceed in a definite direction over thebody of the animals). (6). The law of independent uniformity ofdevelopment (the same course of development is pursued in non-relatedforms and results in similar forms). (7). The law of developmentthrough different stages (different characteristics of the same beingmay develop to a different degree and in different directions). (8). The law of unilateral development (the progeny does not present acomplete combination of the characters of the parents but manifests apreponderance of the characteristics of either parent). (9). The law ofthe reversal of development (the direction of development may reverseand tend towards the starting point). (10). The law of the cessation ofdevelopment (a protracted cessation of development frequently ensues inone or the other stage). 

The origin (perhaps rather the distinction) of species is accounted forprincipally by the last named law, by means of which Eimer alsoexplains the so-called atavism or reversion. To this law are joinedother factors, e. G. , development proceeding in leaps, as demonstratedby Koelliker and Heer; local separation (through migration; preventionof fertilization, e. G. , the impossibility of cross-fertilizationbetween certain individual organisms) which Romanes had already opposedto natural selection, and crossing. 

The second main division of the book is taken up with a very searchingand detailed criticism of Weismann. This criticism seems to me entirelywarranted; because not only the latter's unintelligible position withregard to natural selection (the repudiation of which he seems toregard as synonymous "with cessation of all investigation into thecausal nexus of phenomena in the domain of life") but likewise hisfanciful theory of heredity, utterly devoid as it is of any supportfrom actual observation, bespeak an utter lack of qualities essentialto a naturalist; and the manner in which he ignores his former pupiland his labors, because they proved embarrassing to him, is entirelyunworthy of a man of science. 

Eimer devotes special attention to "mimicry"; and indeed he was forcedto be very solicitous to dispel this fanciful conception of Darwinismwhich radically contradicted his own views. Moreover, the untenablenessof the mimicry hypothesis must have revealed itself very clearly to himin the course of his investigations regarding the coloring ofbutterflies. Mimicry, as our readers are well aware, consists in this, that living beings imitate other organisms or even inanimate objects;Darwinism maintains that this is done for the sake of protectionagainst enemies. This phenomenon is said to have been produced byselection. Those animals that possessed, for instance, some similarityto a leaf, in consequence escaped their enemies more easily than othersand survived, while those that had no leaf-like appearance succumbed;when this process had been repeated a few times, many animals(butterflies) gradually developed that marvelous leaf-like appearance, which frequently deceives the most practiced eye. 

It appears so simple and natural that one need not wonder that thispeculiar phenomenon gained many an adherent for Darwinism. But, ofcourse, it is directly opposed to the views of Eimer; and it is forthis reason that he endeavors so assiduously to disprove the error ofDarwinism in this regard. As the underlying color design of thebutterfly Eimer designates eleven longitudinal designs; and theexamination of the leaf-like forms leads him to the conclusion, thattheir appearance always depends on "the unaltered condition or thegreater prominence of certain parts of this fundamental design. " Thereis to be observed a shifting of the third band, so that in conjunctionwith the fourth, which is curved, it forms the mid-rib of the leaf. Eimer finds the cause of this phenomenon in the alteration of the form. The leaf-like form results from an acumination and elongation of thewings, which in turn results from a marked elongation of the rim of thefore-wing. And this again is produced by the proportionately greatergrowth of one part of the wing-section than of the others. 

With reference to the reason of this growth it is of importance to notethat experiments, consisting in the application of artificial heat tothe chrysales of the swallow-tail and sailor-butterfly, demonstratedthat by this means "the fore-wing is drawn out more toward the outerwing-vein, and the rim of the fore-wing becomes more elongated andcurved. " It is observed, however, that the natural heat-forms of thesame genera and species, namely, the summer-forms and those which livein the warm southern climate, exhibit, for instance, in the case ofbutterflies akin to the sailor, the same features, the elongation andmore marked curvature of the fore-rim of the fore-wings and theconsequent more extended form, that are produced by the action ofartificial heat. Manifestly this is a matter of vital importance forthe solution of the question: heat, whether artificial or natural, produces a difference in growth, which results in a change of form andcoloring. There is consequently no room for natural selection or thestruggle for existence. 

The leaf-like form is generally associated with the dark, faded colorsof dry leaves, and when this similarity disappears even bright colorsappear on the fore-wings. In many cases the resemblance to leaves isvery imperfect; different forms of the same species live side by sideand among them are to be found those, the resemblance of which toleaves is extremely slight. All these facts, and especially thefrequently recurring retrogression of the leaf-like appearance, justifyserious doubt regarding the Darwinian assumption, that adaptation was anecessity for the forest-butterflies on account of the protection whichit provided. 

An eye witness furthermore declares that the butterflies that resembleleaves most closely do not always alight on withered leaves, on whichthey would be almost invisible, but frequently rest on a greenbackground, against which they show off very clearly, and thereforecould not long escape the keen eye of birds. Besides, these butterfliesare but seldom pursued by the birds, of which there is question here, and hence are in no need of protection. 

The longer Eimer devoted his attention to the origin of thisresemblance the more "the poetic picture of the imitated leaf" vanishedout of sight, and he became convinced that it involved the necessaryexpression of the lines of development, which the respective beingswere bound to follow, and that there was no question of imitation. 

Apart from the resemblance to leaves, by reason of regular changes ofcolor, design, and wing-structure, numerous non-related butterfliesoften develop such wonderful similarities--which are not, as hithertosupposed, imitations or disguises produced by selection, but are eitherthe outcome of an entirely independent uniformity of development or, atleast, of its consequence--that it must be admitted that externalsimilarity may arise by different means and in various ways. Theserelations of similarity are of such frequent recurrence because of thelimited number of directions of development in which changes or colorand design in butterflies may tend. Eimer finds the reason of thissmall number of directions, in which development may proceed, in thefact "that the elementary external influences of climate andnourishment on the constitution of the organism are everywhere thecause of the transformations. "

Another important point is the difference of sex. If the butterfliesare of different sex, the males as a rule exhibit a more developedstage of design and color than the females. These frequently present onthe upper side the stage of coloration, which the males present on thelower side, while the upper side of the males is one stage in advance. It is of special significance that the characters of the more advancedsex frequently correspond to those of a related, superior species, andoccasionally to those of widely separated species. Eimer endeavors toexplain male predominance "by a more delicate and more developed, i. E. , more complex, chemico-physical organization of the male organism. " Eventhis development tends toward simplification, the origin of dull-blackcolors. 

This most interesting question brings Eimer into conflict with anotherDarwinian principle, the so-called principle of "sexual election, "according to which the more striking characteristics of the male sexbecome strengthened for the reason that females invariably give thepreference to the males endowed with them, over those that are less"attractive. " These exceedingly romantic ideas have been often anddeservedly repudiated, e. G. , even by Wallace only a short time aftertheir first appearance. Eimer really does them too much honor when heagain undertakes, even with a certain amount of respect, a thoroughrefutation of them, "as in every regard unfounded. " It is of primaryimportance to note here, that in the case of dimorphism of the sexesabrupt modifications occur in connection with unilateral heredity. "Itis impossible for sexual selection to produce a change of design andcolor, which results in the sudden kaleidoscopic formation of whollydifferent designs, as we find actually taking place through the actionof artificial heat and cold and other factors in nature. "

This brings us to a brief consideration of the answer, which Eimerproposes to give to the question of the real causes of the formation ofspecies among butterflies. A precise and clear statement of thisimportant part of Eimer's theory of Descent, is contained in thefollowing extracts: "The transformation of organisms is primarilyconditioned by the action of immediate external influences on theorganisms. The same causes, which produce individual growth, especiallyclimate and nourishment, also produce the organic growth of organisms, that is, transmutation, which is but a continuation in the progeny ofindividual growth, through the transmission of the characteristicsacquired during the lifetime of the individual. "

Hence, transmutation is simply a physiological process, a phyleticgrowth. 

"The changes, which the individual organism experiences during its lifein its material, physiological and morphological organization, are inpart transmitted to its progeny. The changes thus acquired become moremarked from generation to generation, until finally they result in aperceptible new structure. "

"In this process, new or changing external influences undoubtedlyexercise great activity, but the same influences, constantly repeated, must in the course of time also produce a change in the organismsthrough the physiological activity, which is conditioned by them, sothat after a long time elapses, a species will have changed even in anunvarying environment and will react on new influences in a mannerquite different from their progenitors; their "constitution" hasundergone a change. "

"This organic growth of living beings takes place regardless of theactive use of the organs and in many cases remains independent of this(Lamarckian) factor of transformation. But use may exerciseconsiderable influence on the formation resulting from the primitiveorganic growth, by modifying the growth, by restricting it to thoseparts most frequently called into use, or even by depriving other partsof the necessary matter (compensation). "

"The Lamarckian principle, therefore, offers but a possible and totransformation, the principal cause is to be found in organic growth. "

"* * * The organic growth of butterflies is primarily conditioned byclimatic influences. * * * The proof is to be found in the factsrevealed by the geographical distribution of butterflies, by thevariations corresponding to the seasons, and by experiments regardingthe influence of artificial heat and cold on development. "

Experimental proof is naturally of vital importance for Eimer's theory. He cites in this regard especially the experiments of Merrifield, Handfuss, Fischer, Fickert, and Countess Maria von Linden. In Eimer'sown laboratory the latter performed experiments on Papilionides, "whichprove in the most striking manner the recapitulation of thefamily-history in the individual. " "The fact that it is possible byraising or lowering the temperature during the time of development tobreed butterflies, possessed of the characteristics of relatedvarieties and species living in southern and northern regionsrespectively, characteristics not merely of color and design, but alsoof structure, is complete irrefragable proof of my views. "

Eimer therefore belongs to the class of naturalists, like Wigand, Askenasy, Naegeli, and many others, who reject the purely mechanicaltrend of Darwinism and recognize an "immanent principle ofdevelopment. " He seeks the essential cause of evolution in theconstitution of the plasm of organisms. This very analogy between thedevelopment of the family and that of the individual should, in fact, convince any one of this. If Eimer chooses to refer the analogy to"growth" and to designate the evolution of the whole animated kingdomas also a process of growth, there is, strictly speaking, no room forobjection. However, there is here a danger, which he does not seem tohave guarded against. To designate the whole process as a growth, asEimer does, really explains nothing, but merely defines more clearlythe status of the problem. For, what do we know of the so-calledprocess of growth? In truth, nothing, so that very little is gained byreferring evolution to organic growth; the problem remains unsolved. 

The most important and correct part of Eimer's conclusion seems to bethe establishment of definite lines of development. He has, in fact, permanently disposed of the Darwinian assumption of universal chaos inevolution, upon which good mother Nature could at will exercise herchoice. Fortuitously initiated development is a condition sine qua nonof Darwinism and Weismannism. For any one, who has studied the work ofEimer and still adheres to this fundamental error of Darwinism, thereis no possible escape from the labyrinth into which he has allowed thehand of Darwinism to lead him. 

If, on the one hand, Eimer recognizes the immanent principles ofdevelopment, he, nevertheless, on the other hand, also accords dueconsideration and ascribes great efficacy to external influences; infact, he represents them as perhaps the more essential factor. Climate, nourishment, etc. , affect the inner structure, the plasm, transform itand thus produce variation which is transmitted to the progeny. But, however great may be the influence of environment, Eimer seems tooverestimate it. Indeed, the analogy of "growth" should have led Eimerto a conception of the true relation between "internal" and "external"causes. Warmth, air, light, moisture and nourishment, are undoubtedlynecessary factors in the process of growth, but they are only theconditions which render it possible, and not the causes which produceit. The latter are to be found in the individual organism itself. Theconditions may be ever so favorable and well-adapted for growth, stillthe organism will not develop unless it bear within itself the power todo so. On the other hand, although it is hampered and may becomeabnormal, it will readily grow even in an unfavorable environment, aslong as it retains its inherent vital force. The same is very likelytrue of the genealogical growth. Evolution took place in virtue of thepower inherent in the developing organisms. But only when theenvironment was favorable and normal, did the evolution proceedfavorably and normally, that is, toward the perfection of the animatekingdom. 

It appears as if the internal principle of development were losinginfluence and significance with Eimer; but the ulterior reason for thisis not far to seek. Whoever recognizes the validity of the internalprinciple of development, eliminates chance, that stop-gap ofmaterialism, from evolution, and is lead at once to a supremeIntelligence which directs evolution. As soon as it comes in sight, however, certain persons take fright and turn aside or even turn backin order to avoid it. This was the case with Eimer, although perhaps ina lesser degree. This is sincerely to be deplored, since his theorywould have gained in depth if he had but done full justice to theinternal principle of development. For the same reason he seems to haveattacked Naegeli's principle of perfection, another fact which is verymuch to be regretted. True, it is as anti-mechanical as it can be andhence has gained but few adherents; but it is based on truthnevertheless, and will some day prevail in the doctrine of Descent. 

It is perfectly intelligible that the thought of "perfection" shouldnot have occurred to Eimer or should have slipped his memory duringhis observations on butterflies. The fact however, reveals aone-sidedness which he could have avoided. When the notion of utilityis rejected--and Eimer rejects it very emphatically in his discussionson mimicry--it is undoubtedly difficult to arrive at the concept of aperfecting tendency. This, however, can in no way mean that thisconcept should be entirely banished from nature, even as the notion ofutility cannot be banished. Even if the coloration and design of thewings of the butterfly do not reveal utility, other characteristicscertainly do reveal it. It is one of the fatal mistakes of Darwinism, that it fails to recognize the possibility of dividing the charactersand qualities of organisms into two large groups, as I attemptedto do with more detail, for instance, in my "Catechism of Botany. "There I called them (p. 89) "Autochthon-morphological" and"adaptive-morphological characters. " The former reveal no relationto utility, they are innate and distinguish the organism from otherorganisms; the latter can be explained by means of certain vitalfunctions, hence they possess a certain utility and adapt themselvesmore or less to environment. The former are permanent, the latterchangeable. Darwinians regard all the characters of organisms asuseful, physiological, and adaptive. If they have been hithertounable to make good this assumption, they appeal to our lack ofknowledge and console themselves with the thought that the future mayyet reveal the missing relations. The presence on plants and animalsof any autochthon-morphological characters means death to Darwinism, because these can never be explained by means of selection and strugglefor existence. 

Eimer is too much inclined towards the other extreme; he does not admitthe existence of adaptive-morphological characteristics. Viewed in thisaspect, his repudiation of mimicry may perhaps also seem somewhat harshand one-sided. In this narrowness of view must also be sought thereason for his complete repudiation of Naegeli's principle ofperfection. 

It is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world there existsan ascending scale from the imperfect to the perfect. Every organism isindeed perfect in its own sphere and from its own point of view. Butperfection with reference to things of earth is a very relativeconcept; many an organism which is perfect in itself, appears veryimperfect when compared with others. If, then, there is a gradation ofanimals and plants from the lower to the higher, it is the task of thetheory of Descent to explain this gradual perfection. The crude andaimless activity of Darwinian selection, which necessarily operatesthrough "chance, " can never explain this perfection, which remains, asfar as selection is concerned, one of the greatest enigmas of nature. Far from solving the enigma, selection but makes it obscurer. 

If, then, one refuses to recognize a directing creative Intelligence, whose direction produces this perfection, nothing remains but Naegeli'sprinciple of perfection. The outer world with its influences cancertainly not produce perfection, hence this power must lie within theorganism itself. But when one has once brought himself to accept animmanent principle of development, it surely cannot be difficult totake the next step and ascribe to it the tendency towards perfection. 

That Eimer does not take this step, is, to my mind, a mistake, whichmust be attributed to his one-sidedness, which, in turn, results fromthe fact that he generalizes too arbitrarily his observations onbutterflies and the conclusions which he draws from them. Animals andplants certainly possess many characteristics which cannot be explainedby means of his theory alone. The conclusion will probably be finallyarrived at, that nature is inexhaustible and many-sided, even in thelines on which it proceeds to attain this or that end. 

One thing, however, of primary importance is evident from theinvestigations of Eimer, namely the proof that the same lines ofdevelopment may be entered upon from entirely differentstarting-points, and that the number of these lines is limited. Thisfact is of importance because it enjoins more caution in arguing fromuniformity of development to family-relation, than has been usuallyemployed since the days of Darwin. The method commonly employed isundoubtedly very convenient, but is somewhat liable to be misleading. Hence, if one wishes to establish the genealogical relationship offorms, nothing remains but to set out on the laborious path of studyingthe development of both; and even then it remains questionable whetherthe truth will be arrived at. However, he who concludes to relationshipfrom a comparison of developed forms, is much less likely to arrive atthe truth. 

In one point Eimer concedes too much to Darwinism, in the matter of thefamous fundamental principle of biogenesis, according to which anorganism is said to repeat in its individual development the wholeseries of its progenitors. Although he does not enter upon adiscussion of the principle, it is evident from one passage that heaccepts it. One is inclined to think that his careful observations andexperiments should have convinced him of the contrary. It appears tome, at least, that the abundant materials of his observations bearevidence radically opposed to the principle. During late years, theantagonism to it has been on the increase, and the day is not verydistant when it shall have passed into history. It would certainly bea laudable undertaking to enter upon a thorough investigation of theactual basis of the principle. 

CHAPTER VI. 

In every disease, especially in a lingering one, there are times whenlife's flickering embers glow with an unnatural brightness. Hence, itwould not be a all surprising if a similar phenomenon were to beobserved in the case of dying Darwinism; for it cannot be doubted thatits disease is chronic. It has, in fact, been dying this long time. Certain indications render it very probable that we are at presentwitnessing such a phenomenon, for to-day we behold once more a fewnaturalists stepping before the public in defense of Darwinism. We aredesirous of presenting the present status of the Darwinian theory asobjectively as possible, hence, since we have hitherto heard exclusivelyanti-Darwinian testimonies--as the nature of the case demanded--weshall now lend our attention to a Darwinian. The reader may then decidefor himself whether this treatise should not still bear the title, "Atthe 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 thePresent Status of Darwinism, " which is highly instructive and importantin more respects than one. 

We wish, in the first place, to call special attention to the followingstatements embodied in the article: "It is not to be denied that inserious professional circles the former enthusiasm has considerablydecreased and a scepticism is gaining ground more and more, whichbetrays a widespread tendency towards revolutionizing current theories. The _fin de siecle_ therefore, finds Darwinism not with the proudmien of a conqueror, but on the defensive against new antagonists. " Andagain: "It seems, in fact, as if Darwinism were about to enter acrisis, the outcome of which can scarcely be any longer a matter ofdoubt. "

To what outcome reference is made, appears from two sentences in theIntroduction: "Thus it happens that a theory which was once accordedenthusiastic approval, is treated with cold disdain or vice versa. Examples of this are to be found in the history of all sciences andcircumstances seem to indicate that Darwinism is to add another to thenumber of these theories. "

Is not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted? It is mostsignificant that these words are not written by an opponent ofDarwinism, but by one who seems to be thoroughly convinced of the truthof Darwinism. I am of opinion that it can be no longer a matter ofdoubt to any one, that the position of Darwinism is hopeless. If thiswere not true, a Darwinian would be very careful about making such anopen and unreserved statement. 

We therefore accept Professor von Wagner's words as a very welcomeendorsement of what we have constantly maintained. Professor vonWagner, however, proposes to himself the further question: Whence comesthe unfavorable attitude of present-day natural science towardsDarwinism? A discussion of this question by a Darwinian cannot but beof interest to us, and indeed is an important contribution to theproblem. With Goette, Professor von Wagner admits that the objections, which are raised against Darwinism to-day, are the very same which wereraised from thirty to forty years ago. But when he then proceeds toassert that this is not to be explained on the assumption that thepristine enthusiasm for selection was due to a serious over-estimationof that theory, he fails to furnish even a shred of evidence in supportof his assertion. 

Anyone can readily point out that Darwinism explains the totality ofthe world of organisms by interlinking them, but has generally failedto account for the individual case, Wagner admits this as far as the"actual" is concerned, for it is quite impossible to trace with anycertainty the action, in any particular case, of natural selection inthe process which results in the production of a new species. At theoutset it was reasonable to hope, that with the progress of sciencethis difficulty would be solved or at least lessened; but thisexpectation has not been realized. * * * It is wholly unintelligiblehow a naturalist can make this statement five hundred years after Baconof Verulam, without drawing therefrom the proper conclusion. This lackof logic reminds me strongly of the assertion recently made by aneminent authority, that the principal cause of the difficulties of manynaturalists in matters of religion is their deficient philosophicaltraining. 

Wagner's statement implies that, in the case of Darwinism one may indefiance of all established law, actually reverse the methods ofnatural science. How justifiable and how necessary was it not, then, that even three decades ago Wigand should have written hiscomprehensive work: "Darwinism and the Scientific Researches of Newtonand Cuvier. "

Ordinarily the scientific (inductive) method proceeds from the "actual"and attempts to deduce from the "individual case" an explanation, whichapplies to the whole. Here, however, we are face to face with a theory, which, according to the candid confession of an advocate, fails in theindividual case, but furnishes a unifying explanation of the whole. This means nothing less than a complete subversion of all scientificmethods. Usually a theory is deduced from separate observationsregarding the "actual" but here--and this is what Wigand constantlyasserted--the theory was enunciated first, and then followed theattempt to establish it in fact. One could then rest content and trustto the future to establish the theory by producing evidences of the"actual" in the individual case. But forty years have elapsed since theDarwinian hypothesis first became known, naturalists by the thousandshave spent themselves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs basedon actual facts, and to-day one of its own advocates has to confessthat the endeavor has been a total failure. Instead of drawing theconclusion, however, that the theory is unwarranted and that thedecrease of enthusiasm for it is therefore a natural consequence, hegratuitously enters a flat denial of this inference. 

Every intelligent observer must conclude with absolute certainty fromthis confession of a Darwinian, that Darwinism is, in fact, not ascientific but a philosophic theory of nature. 

But let us proceed to a consideration of the other reasons which Wagnersuggests as an explanation of the retrogression of Darwinism. He statesas a first reason, that scientific research since Darwin "has amassedsuch an abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the principleof Descent, that this doctrine has been able, even for some time past, to maintain an independent position and to draw proofs of its truthimmediately 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 thecorrect one, has decreased by no means inconsiderably in significance, inasmuch as Darwin's theory could now, if it were necessary, beabandoned with less concern than formerly because it could berelinquished without detriment to the doctrine of Descent. "

It is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a fact of suchimportance so superficially. With naive unconcern there appears on theface of it the acknowledgement that Darwinism has really not been basedon actual observation but has been enunciated for the sake of thedoctrine of Descent. Come what may, this must be vindicated. Othermeans are now said to substantiate it, hence the Darwinian crutches maysafely be discarded. The principle of action twenty or thirty years agowas therefore: a poor explanation is better than no explanation. Icannot understand, how Wagner dares to credit present-day naturalistswith such motives. 

When he then proceeds to say "that with the advance of the principle ofdevelopment, new lines were entered upon, which led primarily to thecorroboration and empiric demonstration of the doctrine of Descent, andnot of Darwinism"--that the theory of Darwin was consequently neglectedand, in fact, forced into the background--"that the labors specificallyattributable to Darwinism as compared with the theory of Descent, putthe former more and more into a false position to the detriment of itsprestige"--when, I say, Wagner has marshalled all these considerationsto explain the present aversion to Darwinism, he is guilty of a totalsubversion of facts. The true state of the case is the very contrary. 

The credit given by Wagner to the Darwinian theory for stimulatingresearch, is the very same as I also accorded it. The purpose of thisresearch undoubtedly was to substantiate not only the doctrine ofevolution 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 establishedfor that very purpose and which continued to publish good and badindiscriminately until some time in the eighties when lack of interestcompelled its discontinuance. Wagner therefore misconstrues facts whenhe asserts that there have been no specifically Darwinian researches. Since the thoughts of Darwin first found expression these researcheshave been most abundant and their results have been consigned to theprinter's ink. No doubt--and this is the salient point, which Wagnerpasses over in complete silence--they have been of service only to thedoctrine of Descent in general, and in spite of the energetic effortsof the Darwinians, they have never led to the ardently desired prooffrom facts of the hypothesis of selection. This and no other is thestate of the case. 

In view of these vain endeavors, however, intelligent investigatorshave gradually become perplexed and have turned away from Darwinism, not because they have lost interest in it nor even because they nolonger feel the need of it to assist the doctrine of Descent, but forthe one sole reason that its insufficiency has become more and moreapparent and that all experiments undertaken on its behalf have madethe fact clearer and clearer that the first criticism of the greatnaturalists of the sixties and seventies was perfectly justified. 

In forming a judgment concerning the whole question it cannot but be amatter of the utmost significance, that men have turned away fromDarwinism to entirely different theories of Descent. It is a mistake tosuppose, as Wagner would have us suppose, that the last decades haveproduced nothing but generalities regarding the doctrine of Descent. For they have also witnessed the publication of a number of significantworks, which aimed at giving a better individual explanation than wasfound in Darwinism. I need but recall Naegeli, Eimer, Haacke and a hostof others. The most noteworthy feature of these new views regardingtheories of Descent, is the constantly spreading conviction that thereal determining causes of evolution are to be sought for in theconstitution of the organisms themselves, hence in internal principles. This view, however, is not only absolutely and diametrically opposed toDarwinism but completely destructive of it as well. 

The actual circumstances, therefore, are the very reverse of thosepictured by Wagner. Darwinism has been rejected not on account of alack of research but on account of an abundance of research, whichprovided its absolute insufficiency. 

Besides these "general points of view, " as he calls them, Wagner findstwo other "considerations of no less importance" for explaining thedecay of Darwinism. It is an incontrovertible fact, that the hereditarytransmission of acquired characters has in no way been proved. On thecontrary after it had at first received a general tacit recognition andwas postulated by Lamarck, Darwin and Haeckel, it was denied byWeismann. Wagner asserts "that the number of those who have alliedthemselves with Weismann in this matter is obviously on the increase asis naturally the case, since, to the present day not a singleincontestable case of hereditary transmission of acquired charactershas been demonstrated, where as actual facts are at hand to prove thecontrary. "

It is perfectly evident that the doctrine that acquired characters arenot inherited is fatal to Darwinism. Hence Wagner rightly considers itsascendancy a notable factor in bringing about the decay of Darwinism. 

Finally, Wagner briefly indicates that certain new theories necessarilyexercised an influence on Darwinism. Haeckel and the palaeontologistsof North America supplemented it with a number of Lamarckian elementswithout alteration of its essential principles (the Neo-Lamarckians);Eimer regards the transmission of acquired characters as an establishedfact, but rejects natural selection as wholly worthless; Weismann, onthe contrary, denies the transmission of acquired characters, butnevertheless regards natural selection as the main factor in theformation of species (the theory of the Neo-Darwinians). Eimer speaksof the impotence of natural selection, Weismann of its omnipotence. Allthis has shaken men's confidence in the trustworthiness of theDarwinian principles. This fact we are in no way inclined to doubt, butwe must again differ from Wagner with regard to its significance. Wemaintain that matters had to take this turn, since the reason whyDarwinism is now meeting with such serious opposition, is to be foundin its very nature. This indeed should have been recognized forty yearsago instead of just beginning to dawn on men of science at the presentday. For if acquired characters are not transmitted by heredity, Darwinism is an impossibility. Forty years ago Darwinism should haverecognized that its first and supreme task was to prove the hereditarytransmission of acquired characters, so as to establish itself, firstof all, on a sound footing. 

One of the most peculiar incidents in this scientific tragi-comedy isthe fact that Weismann, the mainstay of contemporary decadentDarwinism, attacks with might and main its fundamental assumption, thetransmission of acquired characters, whereas Eimer, who is thoroughlyconvinced that he has proved that doctrine, in his turn attacksDarwinism and proves with telling effect the impotence of itsprinciples. The amused observer can really demand nothing more. He canbut rub his hands for joy and cheer on the heated combatants: Welldone! On with the struggle! and the last vestige of Darwinism will soonhave disappeared. 

If, then, we were to summarize our strictures on the reasons whichWagner adduces to account for the decay of Darwinism, we would saythis: Some of them are unwarranted, others are falsely interpreted. 

There is, however, a third point which is of special interest to us, inthe article under consideration; we refer to the view, which therefinds expression, regarding the nature and outcome of the presentcrisis--a crisis, which, as a candid naturalist, Wagner is not in aposition to deny. 

This view rests on the entirely gratuitous assertion, "that thedecline, in the esteem enjoyed by Darwinism, is not due to a betterinsight arising from widened experience, but is primarily theexpression of a tendency--a tendency which resulted almost as apsychological necessity from the precarious position into whichDarwinism was forced under the sway of the theory of Descent. " Thisassertion rests, as stated above, on wholly erroneous assumptions. Itis a serious mistake, to speak in this connection of tendencies andeven to brand them as a "psychological necessity. " The decline inesteem is essentially due to experience, and indeed to experience whichhas made it certain that Darwinism has everywhere failed. 

The importance of the present crisis in Darwinism is to be restrictedeven further, according to Wagner, by the fact, "that the realobjections, urged against the theory of Darwin, are almost in everyinstance based on theoretic considerations, the validity of which canbe put to the test only in fictitious cases. This manner of proceedingmanifestly leads to the inevitable consequence, that the results thusobtained can claim no decisive weight against Darwinism. A decisivecritique can be constructed only on the basis of experience, and inthis connection it cannot be emphasized sufficiently, that, as yet, thepath to it has been scarcely indicated, to say nothing of its havingbeen actually pursued. " The reason for this fact according to Wagner, is to be found "in the numerous and most extraordinary difficultiesthat arise in the way of the empiric investigation of the theory ofselection. "

After we have read all this, we instinctively ask ourselves: do weactually live at the beginning of the 20th century? Is it possible, that even at this late day the whole structure of scientific method isto be subverted in this fashion?

Just consider for a moment, what according to these words is the actualimport of the whole article: Darwinism is a unifying explanation of theorigin of the totality of the world of organisms, but fails in theindividual case; in any specified case it is "almost impossible" totrace with any certainty the action of natural selection in the processwhich results in the production of a new species; that is, Darwinismwas enunciated with a complete disregard for inductive method, as anhypothesis to explain the whole, and without actual proof in theconcrete--a most unscientific procedure. Immediately after, however, the adversaries of Darwinism are asked in all seriousness to produceindividual facts in disproof of the theory. 

In the same strain Wagner goes on to say that "from no point of view isour vision so penetrating as to be able to grasp the coherence whichaccording to Darwin pervades the complex course of natural selection. When men of science take occasion to repudiate Darwinism because of ourinability to explain satisfactorily any particular case by means of thetheory of selection, this inability arises not from the theory ofDarwin but from the inadequacy of our experience. For as yet theempiric prerequisites for an objective judgment regarding the validityor futility of the theory of selection are entirely lacking. " Everynaturalist who believes in the inductive method must needs draw theconclusion from these naive admissions, that, as Darwinism lacks theempiric prerequisites, it should be discarded. Moreover, the demand ismade in all seriousness, that, in order to refute Darwinism which hasnot as yet been established empirically, empiric proofs should beforthcoming. 

To my mind, the scientific and logical bankruptcy of Darwinism wasnever announced more bluntly and ingenuously. Furthermore it must beremarked that Wagner's statement, regarding "fictitious cases, " is noteven pertinent. He seems to have no idea of the observations andexperiments of Sachs, Haberlandt, Eimer, and a host of otherinvestigators. The disproof of Darwinism on the basis of scientificresearch is an accomplished fact. 

A word about the conclusion of Wagner's article, which in view of whathas been already said, cannot be a matter of surprise. He maintainsthat the considerations which he adduces, "clearly" prove that there isno "reasonable ground for despairing of the theory of Darwin--; for atheory, which neither proceeds from questionable assumptions, nor losesitself in airy hypotheses, but rests throughout and exclusively onfacts, need never fear the advance of science. "

But a moment ago it was asserted that the theory of selection islacking "entirely as yet the empiric prerequisites" and now onlytwenty-three lines further on, it rests "throughout and exclusively onfacts. " It is difficult to know what conclusion to come to regarding anaturalist and University professor who can commit himself to such acontradiction. I shall abstain from any comment and let the reader formhis own judgment. 

Does this article betoken the death-bed of Darwinism? For my own part Irepeat what I said above, that I consider it the most valuablecontribution to the characterization of decadent Darwinism that hasappeared up to the present time. The sooner a theory, which is thustreated and characterized by one of its own advocates, is stored awayin the lumber-room of science, the better. In view of the soundjudgment, which is to-day becoming more and more apparent in scientificcircles, there is reason to hope that this article of Professor vonWagner will be additional incentive for many naturalists to breakcompletely with Darwinism. 

CHAPTER VII. 

In the year 1899 Haeckel published a new work, which he intended as akind of testament; for with the close of the nineteenth century theauthor desired to put a finishing touch to his life-work. 

In the Preface Haeckel states with very remarkable modesty that hisbook cannot reasonably claim to present a complete solution of theriddles of existence; that his answer to the great questions cannaturally be only subjective and only partly correct; that hisattainments in the different branches is very unequal and imperfect;and that his book is really only a sketch book of studies of veryunequal value. In this way the author naturally gains at once theconfidence of his reader who is thus prepared to yield assent when theauthor makes pretense to sincerity of conviction and an honest searchafter truth. The reader's surprise at the contents of the book and atthe manner of its presentation is, however, only increased by thisruse. All modesty has vanished, monistic doctrines are presented asabsolute truth, every divergent opinion is contemptuously branded asheretical; in short, the book reveals a Darwinian orthodoxy of thepurest type, with all the signs of blind bigotry and odious intolerancewhich the author imagines he discovers in his Christian adversaries. Itis difficult to see where, in view of such a contradiction between thework and its Preface, there is room for an honest striving after truth. Personally I do not wish to deny Haeckel all honesty of purpose, for itis my endeavor to understand the _whole_ man. The one prominentfeature of the "Weltraetsel" is the fact that, owing to a very markeddeficiency in philosophical training, Haeckel has become so completelyabsorbed in his system that he has lost all interest in everything elseand takes cognizance only of what suits his purpose. What he lacksabove all, is the ability to appreciate even the "honest" opinion ofothers; hence, from the very outset he brings into the discussion thatbitterness of which he complains in others (in the Weltraetsel he oncemakes this accusation against me). Notwithstanding all this, honestconviction may be present, but if so, it is joined with totalblindness. But what is to be thought of his search after truth since hecompletely ignores his adversaries? For instance, in spite of Loofs'attacks, he continues to have his book reprinted without alteration, without submitting it to revision. The "Reichsbote" is perfectly in theright when it says: Haeckel, in fact, takes account only of what suitshis purpose. 

As regards the contents of the "Weltraetsel, " it is not my intention toenter here upon a criticism of it but merely to discuss it asillustrating the general status of the theory of Descent. It is to benoted, in the first place, that it is really not a scientific book atall; for of its 472 pages, the first or "Anthropological Part, " withwhich alone we are here concerned, occupies only 74 (from pages 27 to100), even less than one-sixth of the whole, whereas the "TheologicalPart" is almost twice as long. The book is, in fact, rather atheologico-natural-philosophical treatise than a work of naturalscience. The scientific part is, however, the foundation on whichHaeckel builds up his natural philosophy, and which he uses as thestarting point of his criticism of theology. Hence it is worth ourwhile to discuss it. 

How then fares it with the anthropological basis of Haeckel's wholesystem? As an attentive student of his age the naturalist-philosopherof Jena must have perceived the true position of Darwinism, namely, that the foremost naturalists of to-day have no more than an historicalinterest in it. Since, in accordance with the well known tendency ofold men to persevere in the position they have once assumed and noteasily to accept innovations, Haeckel is still an incorrigibly orthodoxDarwinian, we should naturally expect him to embody in this testamentsome new cogent evidence of the truth of Darwinism. But nothing of thatnature is to be found in the book. 

The first chapter of the "Anthropological part" is taken up with a"general history of nineteenth century culture, " in itself a sign ofpeculiar logical acumen, that he should include this and the "struggleregarding world-views" in the "anthropological part" instead ofembodying it in a general introduction. The remaining chapters treat:"Our Bodily Structure, " "Our Life, " "Our Embryonic-history, " "OurFamily-history. " It is not to be supposed, however, that any argumentsare here adduced, nothing but assertions; a large part of the chapteris taken up with historical sketches, in which Haeckel again proveshimself utterly devoid of all appreciation of history and all sense ofjustice. He attributes the decay of the natural sciences to the"flourishing condition of Christianity" and dares to speak of theunfavorable influence of Christianity on civilization. Apart from thehistorical sketch, each chapter presents only the quintessence ofDarwinism, fairly bristling with assertions, which are boldly put forthas incontrovertible truths. In view of the author's demand to have atleast his sincere love of truth recognized, we can but throw up ourhands out of sheer astonishment. To illustrate Haeckel's "love oftruth" let it suffice to observe that in the second chapter he assertsthat man is not only a true vertebrate, a true mammal, etc. --whichindeed is passable--but even a true ape (having "all the anatomicalcharacteristics of true apes"). With a wonderful elasticity he passesover the differences. What, indeed, is to be said, when he states as a"fact" that "physiologically compared (!), the sound-speech of apes isthe preparatory stage to articulate human speech. " It is so simplymonstrous, that even Garner's famous book of ape-speech, cannot surpassit. As a third illustration of Haeckel's method of argumentation, if weare still justified in speaking of such a thing, we may mention hisassertion (p. 97) as a "certain historical fact, " "That man isdescended directly from the ape, and indirectly from a long line oflower vertebrates. " If, in view of the results of research during thelast forty years any one can assert this as a "certain historical fact"and can still wish to be credited with honest conviction and love oftruth, there remains, to adopt Haeckel's own expression, but oneexplanation for this psychological enigma, namely, intellectual_marasmus senilis_, which may very easily have set in with a manof sixty-six, who himself complains (p. 7) of "divers warnings ofapproaching age. "

Thus, the anthropological part of the "Weltraetsel" contains nothingnew; always the same old story, the same threadbare assertions withouta shred of evidence to corroborate them. 

The remaining parts also contain various scientific assertions, whichare proposed as facts without being such, but these parts do notimmediately pertain to our theme. Suffice it to say that, after readingHaeckel's "Weltraetsel, " one would be led to think that there is noquestion of a "deathbed of Darwinism, " but that on the contraryDarwinism, as remodeled by Haeckel, is more in the ascendant to-daythan ever. Let us judge of its prestige by the reception accorded the"Weltraetsel. "

One unaltered edition after the other, thousand after thousand, thebook is given to the public. Hence it must meet with approval. It doesindeed meet with approval, but the question is, from whom? Immaturecollege and university students will doubtless receive it withreverential awe, just as they received the "Natural History ofCreation" twenty-five years ago. Bebel accepts the book as aninfallible source of truth, and after him the social democrats andfree-church members will add it to the list of their "body and stomachbooks, " which alone will afford it a respectable clientele, at least innumber. In no one of my "deathbed articles, " however, have I as yetever maintained that Darwinism was decadent in _these_ circles. Iknow full well, that Darwinism has filtered down into that sphere andthere satisfies the anti-Christian and anti-religious demands ofthousands. 

Nothing, however, really depends on these senseless blind adherents ofHaeckel's unproved assertions. We are now intent upon investigating howthe world of eminent thinkers and natural science regards the latestproduct of Haeckel's fancy. That alone is of importance in ascertainingthe real status of Darwinism. 

As regards, in the first place, the other parts of the book, it is wellknown that all of them were vigorously attacked. Loofs in particularexposed Haeckel's theology, according to its deserts, in the clearlight of truth, and convicted Haeckel of "ignorance" and "dishonesty;"while the philosopher Paulsen made short work of the "Weltraetsel" fromhis own standpoint, ("if a book could drip with superficiality, Ishould predicate that of the 19th chapter"). Harnack also condemned thetheological section in the "Christliche Welt, " and Troeltsch, Hoenigswald, and Hohlfeld took Haeckel severely to task on philosophicgrounds. The naturalists have thus far maintained silence. 

Scientific journals, and, I believe, only the more popular ones, pass avarying judgment on the book according to the intellectual bent oftheir book reviewers; but no one of the eminent and leading naturalistshas publicly expressed his opinion regarding it. They all maintain avery significant silence, which speaks for itself. Now, however, justat the proper time a book, _Die Descendenz-theorie_ has appearedfrom the pen of the zoologist, Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, inwhich Haeckel is severely condemned. (See Chapter IX. )

The press-notices of the Weltraetsel, which are quoted in the book willbe considered presently. It appears that with reference to naturalscience, only "laymen" discuss the book and approve of Haeckel's views. This is a point of great importance since it proves satisfactorily thatmen of science will have nothing to do with the "Weltraetsel. " Thelarge number of replies would, however, not allow Haeckel's friends toremain silent. The most extensive defense forthcoming was a pamphletpublished by a certain Heinrich Schmidt of Jena. It cannot be gatheredfrom his book (Der Kampf um die Weltraetsel, Bonn, E. Strauss 1900) towhat profession the author belongs, hence I am unable to judge whencehe derives the right to treat Haeckel's opponents in summary a manner. It is significant to note what class of men, according to Schmidt, received the "Weltraetsel" with enthusiasm and joy. They are AugustSpecht, the free-church editor of "Menschentum" and of the "FreienGlocken, " Julius Hart, Professor Keller-Zuerich, the philosopher and"Neokantian" Professor Spitzer of Graz, the popular literateur W. Boelsche, W. Ule, and a few unknown great men, Dr. Zimmer, Th. Pappstein, R. Steiner, A. Haese; but stay, I came very near forgettingthe great pillar, Dodel of Zuerich. But where is there mention of theprofessional colleagues of Haeckel whose testimonies could be takenseriously? Under the heading "Literary Humbug, " which evidently hasreference to the contents of his own work, Schmidt then meets numerousobjections. Here vigorous epithets are bandied about, as, for instance, "absolute nonsense, " "muddler, " "foolish and senseless prattle, " "idletalk, " etc. ; and from Dodel he copies the words with which the latteronce sought to annihilate me: Job, verse 10, "Thou hast spoken like oneof the foolish women. " And he ventures to express indignation at Loofs'"invectives. " As a compliment to Lasson he declares that he couldeasily conceive of the possibility of an ape ascending the professor'schair and speaking as intelligently as he (Lasson); which remark heprobably intended as a witticism. He informs his readers that thecriticism of Haeckel by men like Virchow, His, Semper, Haacke, Baer, and Wigand have been examined by professional specialists and provedpractically worthless. This statement alone so clearly revealsSchmidt's lack of critical faculty and judgment that by it he at onceforfeits his right to be taken seriously. 

The whole book is nothing more than a collection of quotations from thereviews of the "Weltraetsel, " interspersed with characteristicexpressions like "idle talk, " "nonsense, " etc. , as exemplified above. Areally pertinent reply and refutation of objections is entirely beyondSchmidt's range; he waives the demand for a direct reply, for instance, in the following amusing way (p. 28): "Two reasons, however, prevent mefrom being more explicit: In the first place I do not like to disputewith people who adduce variant readings and church-fathers as proofsand can still remain serious. In the second place I would not like tofall into the hands of a Loofs. " In this manner it is indeed easy toevade an argument, which for good reasons one is not able to pursue. Loofs' criticism is so serious and destructive that it should be of theutmost concern to Haeckel's friends to refute it. Since they are unableto do so, they content themselves with references to Loofs' causticstyle, which he should indeed have avoided. There are, nevertheless, cases in which one must employ trenchant phraseology, and Haeckelhimself has given an occasion for it; a dignified style is simply outof the question in his case. Haeckel extricated himself with evengreater ease, by declaring that he had "neither time nor inclination"for reply, and that a mutual understanding with Loofs was impossiblebecause their scientific views were entirely different. Could anythingbe more suggestive of the words of Mephistopheles:

 "But in each word must be a thought-- There is, --or we may so assume, -- Not always found, nor always sought. While words--mere words supply its room. Words answer well, when men enlist 'em, In building up a favorite system. "

There are two other points in Schmidt's book that are of interest tous. The first of these is the manner in which the author treats theRomanes incident. Romanes ranks, as is well known, among the first ofHaeckel's authorities. Hence it is a very painful fact that, but ashort time before the publication of the first edition of the"Weltraetsel, " my translation into German of Romanes' "Thoughts onReligion" should have appeared. From this book it was evident thatHaeckel and his associates could no longer count this man among theirnumber since he--a life-long seeker after truth--had abandoned atheismfor theism, and died a believing Christian. Troeltsch and the"Reichsbote" asked whether Haeckel had purposely concealed this fact, and Schmidt now explains that Haeckel first became acquainted with the"Thoughts on Religion" through him towards the end of January, 1900. Unfortunately he does not add that since then a number of new editionsof the "Weltraetsel" have appeared, in which Haeckel could haveexplained himself in an honorable manner. Schmidt has therefore notbeen successful in his attempt to clear up this matter. 

But how does he settle with Romanes? He says: "_We are assured_that the thoughts were written down by the English naturalist GeorgeJohn Romanes"; and again: "The thoughts are published by a Canon ofWestminster, Charles Gore, to whom _they are said_ to have beenhanded over after the death of Romanes in the year 1894. " Then he hasthe audacity to place Romanes in quotation marks. And finally heasserts that they would abide by Romanes' former works as theirauthority, the more so, because these were not, like the "Thoughts, ""published and glossed by a Canon only after his (Romanes') death. " Bymeans of all this and of a comparison with the "Letters of theObscurantists" he wishes to create the suspicion that there might bequestion here of forgery. Such an insinuation, (I employ Schmidt's ownwords) "cannot be characterized otherwise than as contemptible. " "Hereit is even worse than contemptible. " I must beg my reader's pardon foroverstepping the bounds of reserve with these caustic words, althoughthey originated with Schmidt; but really the flush of anger rightfullymounts to one's cheeks when a man, from the mere fact that he is adisciple of the "great" Haeckel assumes the right to charge Canon Goreand indirectly myself with forgery. It is really very significant thatthese men should have to resort to such base and despicable expedientsto extricate themselves from their unpleasant predicament. Apart fromthis, it was very amusing to me personally to think that for the sakeof my unworthy self, Schmidt should have borrowed from his lord andmaster the epithet "pious, " which Haeckel in his turn has drawn fromhis cherished friend Dodel. In all probability they will continue tohawk it about in order to bring me into disrepute with the rest oftheir kind. The few remarks Schmidt still finds it proper to makeregarding the "Thoughts, " betray his inability to understand the book. But as I stated in the preface it was a difficult book to read andunderstand. It is obviously not reading matter for shallow minds. Irefer Schmidt to the biography of Romanes, published by his wife, (TheLife and Letters of G. J. Romanes, London, Longmans, Green & Co. , 1898), where he will find Romanes' religious development described by awell-informed hand. This development began as early as 1878, henceduring the time of his intimate friendship with Darwin. In this book onpages 372 and 378 Schmidt will also find the words in which, _before_ his death, Romanes begged that, if he were personallyunable to publish the "Thoughts, " they should be given to his friendCanon Gore after his own death. But why waste so many words on Mr. Schmidt, for since all these things must be doubly disagreeable andpainful to him and Haeckel, he will very probably resort without delayto personal insinuation and accuse Mrs. Romanes of forgery. 

To us, however, who thoroughly appreciate the situation, it is a matterof great moment that of one of the few really eminent naturalists, towhom Haeckel thought to be able to lay full and exclusive claim, forthe last twenty years of his life should have been moving towards theChristian faith in his eager search for truth and should die not amonist, but a convinced Christian. Neither did he die an old man, towhom the adherents of monism would certainly have the effrontery toimpute feeble-mindedness, but at the early age of forty-six years. Norwas his a sudden deathbed conversion--an impression which Schmidtattempts to create (p. 62) in order to be able with H. Heine torelegate the conversion to the domain of pathology--but followed aftermany years of diligent and honest study and research. The other pointof which we must treat here, is the manner in which, after the exampleof Dr. Reh, Schmidt attempts in the "Umschau" to exonerate Haeckel inthe matter of the "History of the three cliches. " To begin with, it isat the very least dishonest on the part of Schmidt to say that, "indefault of scientific arguments, theological adversaries have for thelast thirty years been using it as the basis of their attacks. " That isuntrue, the "theological adversaries" have not had knowledge of it forthat length of time. On the contrary Haeckel's own scientificcolleagues were the first to discover and publish the matter some timein the seventies, and in consequence excluded Haeckel from theircircle. Why does Schmidt not mention here the names of Ruetimeyer, His, and Semper? Furthermore Schmidt writes as if Haeckel had satisfied hiscolleagues in the matter of his forgery by declaring soon after (1870)that he had been "guilty of a very ill-considered act of folly. " Whydoes Schmidt not mention the fact that the weighty attacks of His (OurBodily Form and the Physiological Problem of its Origin, Leipzig, 1875)dates from the year 1875, five years after Haeckel's forced, palliativeexplanation? Besides, this incident of the three cliches is only oneinstance; the other examples of Haeckel's sense of truthfulness are forthe most part entirely unknown to his "theological adversaries, " whohave nowhere to my knowledge made use of them; but _all_ of themhave been brought to light and held up before Haeckel by naturalists, namely, by Bastian (1874), Semper and Kossmann (1876 and 1877), Hensenand Brandt (1891), and Hamann (1893). Does this in any way tend toestablish Schmidt's honesty? (Dr. Dennert has entered into a moresearching criticism of Haeckel in his book, _Die Wahrheit ueberHaeckel_. 2 Aufl Halle a. S. , 1902. )

In a word, the manner in which the "Weltraetsel" was received and inwhich Haeckel has been defended by Schmidt, are valuable indications ofthe decay of Darwinism. I repeat that I am speaking of course of theleading scientific circles. Those who hold back are never lacking, andone cannot be surprised that, in the case of Darwinism, their number isconsiderable: for on the one hand, to understand it an extraordinarilyslight demand is made on one's mental capacity; and on the other handit is a very convenient and even a seemingly scientific means ofobviating the necessity of belief in God. These facts appeal verystrongly to the multitude. 

In concluding this section, we shall quote a positive testimony to thedecay of Darwinism. On page 3 of his "Outlines of the History of theDevelopment of Man and of the Mammals" (Leipzig, W. Engelmann, 1897)Prof. O. Schultze, Anatomist in Wuerzburg, says: "The idea entertainedby Darwin, that the development of species may be explained by anatural choice--Selection--which operates through the struggle ofindividuals for existence, cannot permanently satisfy the spirit ofinquiry. Even the factors of variability, heredity, and adaptation, which are essential to the transformation of species, do not offer anexact explanation. "

CHAPTER VIII. 

I have already called attention several times to the fact thatDarwinism is indeed on the wane among men of science, but that it hasgradually penetrated into lay circles where it is now posing asirrefragable truth. Especially the circles dominated by the socialdemocrats swear by nothing higher than Darwin and Haeckel. In fact, only a short time ago Bebel publicly professed himself a convert toHaeckel's wisdom. 

It is inevitable, however, that light should gradually dawn even inthese circles, for it would be indeed strange, if no honest man couldbe found to tell them the truth regarding Darwinism. This has occurredsooner than I dared to hope. This chapter can announce the glad tidingsthat even in "social-democratic science" Darwinism is doomed to decay. Much printer's ink will, of course, be yet wasted before it will be soentirely dead as to be no longer available as a weapon againstChristianity; but a beginning at least has been made. 

In the December number of the ninth year of the _SozialistischeMonatshefte_, a social-democratic writer, Curt Grottewitz, undertakes to bring out an article on "Darwinian Myths. " It is statedthere that Darwin had a few eminent followers, but that the educatedworld took no notice of their work; that now, however, they seemed tobe attracting more attention. "There is no doubt, that a number ofDarwinian views, which are still prevalent to-day, have sunk to thelevel of untenable myths. True, the main doctrine of Darwin--the originof new species from existing ones--is incontestably established, butapart from this even some very fundamental principles, which the masterthought he discerned in the development of organisms, can scarcely beany longer maintained. "

It may be well to remark here, that this was not really Darwin's maindoctrine, for it already existed before his time (Lamarck, Geoffroy St. Hilaire). Darwin's main doctrine is the explanation of the origin ofspecies by natural selection operating through the struggle forexistence. It is therefore the old error repeated. Darwinism isconfounded with the doctrine of Descent, of which it is merely oneform. It is not our intention to derogate in the least from Darwin'smerit, which consists in the fact that he gained general recognitionfor the doctrine of Descent; but that was not his main work. He wishedabove 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 Darwiniandoctrines consists in the fact that they are incapable of beingstrictly and irrefutably demonstrated. The origin of one species fromanother, the conservation of useful forms, the existence of countlessintermediary links, are all assumptions, which could never be supportedby concrete cases found in actual experience. " Some are said to be wellestablished indirectly by proofs drawn from probabilities, while othersare proved to be absolutely untenable. Among the latter Grottewitzincludes "sexual selection, " which is indeed a monstrous figment of theimagination. There was moreover really no reason for adhering to it solong. It is eminently untrue, that the biological research of the lastfew years proved for the _first_ time the untenableness of thisdoctrine, as Grottewitz seems to think. Clear thinkers recognized itsuntenableness long ago, and surely Grottewitz and the whole band ofDarwinian devotees as well, could have known that as early astwenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected to a reductio adabsurdum with classic clearness in Wigand's great work. 

It is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon; for decades we behold adoctrine reverently re-echoed; thoughtful investigators expose itsfolly, but still the worship continues, the Zeitgeist must have itsidol. It appears, however, as if the Zeitgeist were gradually tiring ofits golden calf and were on the point of casting it into therubbish-heap. Misgivings arise on all sides; here one class ofobjections are considered, there another. A closer examination revealsthat these are by no means new reasons, based on new researches, butthe very oldest, urged long ago and perhaps much more clearly andforcibly. At that time, however, the Zeitgeist was under the spell ofthe suggestion of individual men: it heard and saw nothing but thecaptivating, obvious simplicity of the doctrine; but now when thesubject begins to be tedious and the discussion lags, the interestconsequently abates and the Zeitgeist suddenly grasps the oldobjections, presented in a new garb, and what was hitherto truth, clearand irrefutable, now sinks into the dreary, gray mists of myth. Sictransit gloria mundi!

This has been the history of Darwinism, and especially of Darwin'stheory of sexual selection. What Grottewitz urges against it, wasadvanced decades ago by other and more eminent men; then people wouldnot listen, to-day they are inclined to listen. Of very specialinterest is the further admission, that "the principle of gradualdevelopment" has been "considerably shaken" and is "certainlyuntenable. " Grottewitz points out that it has been demonstrated thatthe progeny of the same parents are often entirely dissimilar, and thatnew organs very suddenly spring up in individuals even when they hadhad no previous existence. "A slight variation from the parent form isof no utility to the progeny; they must acquire at once a completelydeveloped, new character, if it is to be of any use to them. " Quiteright! but this one admission is destructive of the entire doctrine ofnatural selection. If one accepts saltatory evolution, as for instance, Heer, Koelliker, and Wigand did long ago, then, as Grottewitz nowdiscovers, the difficulty arising for Darwinism from the absence of thenumerous 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. Helikewise repudiates Darwin's doctrine of adaptation and the theory of"chance, " which is bound up with all his views. "Darwin's theory ofchance seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection. " Thearticle closed with these words: "There must evidently be a verydefinite principle, according to which the frequent and strikingdevelopment from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from theno-longer adapted to the readapted, proceeds. We all of us are far fromconsidering this principle a teleological, mystical or mythical one, but for that matter, Darwin's theory of chance is nothing more than amyth. "

He is most certainly in the right. To place this whole wonderful, andso minutely regulated world of organisms at the mercy of chance isutterly monstrous, and for this very reason Darwinism, which isthroughout a doctrine of chance, must be rejected; it is indeed a myth. We are grateful to Grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed maskof science from this myth and expose it before his associates. Heshould, however, have done so even more vigorously and unequivocallyand should have stated plainly: Darwinism is a complete failure; webelieve indeed in a natural development of the organic world, but weare unable to prove it. 

In the conclusion of the article quoted there is, of course, again tobe found the cloven-hoof: by all means no teleological principle! Butwhy in the world should we not accept a teleological principle, sinceit is clearly evident that the whole world of life is permeated byteleology, that is, by design and finality? Why not? Forsooth, becausethen belief in God would again enter and create havoc in the ranks ofthe "brethren. "

But however much men may struggle against the teleologico-theisticprinciple and secure themselves against it, it is all of no avail, theprinciple stands at the gate and clamors loudly for admission; and ifGrottewitz could but bring himself to undertake a study of Wigand'smasterful work, perhaps his heresy would increase and we might perhapsthen find another article in the "Sozialistische Monatshefte" tendingstill more strongly toward the truth. 

But what will Brother Bebel with his Haeckelism say to the presentarticle?

All in all, instead of calling his article "Darwinian Myths" Grottewitzmight just as well have entitled it "At the Deathbed of Darwinism. " Mayhe bring out a series of "deathbed articles" to disclose the truthregarding Darwinism to his associates. 

CHAPTER IX. 

Professor Fleischmann, zoologist in Erlangen, recently published a bookbearing the title, "Die Descendenztheorie, " in which he opposes everytheory of Descent. The book is made up of lectures delivered by theauthor before general audiences of professional students, hence ispopular in form and of very special apologetic value. Numerousexcellent illustrations aid the reader in understanding the text. 

One statement in the Introduction characterizes the decided positionassumed by the author. He says: "After long and careful investigation Ihave come to the conclusion that the doctrine of Descent has not beensubstantiated. I go even farther and maintain that the discussion ofthe question does not belong to the field of the exact sciences ofzoology and botany. " At the outset, Fleischmann establishes the factthat in the animal kingdom there are rigidly separated types, whichcannot be derived from each other, whereas the doctrine of Descentpostulates "one single common model of body-structure" from which alltypes have been developed. Cuvier in his day, set up four such types ofessentially different structure; when Darwin's work appeared two morehad been added; R. Hertwig postulates even seven, Boas nine (both1900); J. Kennel (1893) seventeen, and Fleischmann himself sixteen. Inconsequence the doctrine of Descent has become more complicated sinceit now embraces sixteen or seventeen different problems, each of whichin turn gives rise to many subordinate problems. 

The discussion which the author inaugurates regarding the domain towhich the question of Descent belongs, is very well-timed. He forciblyand definitely discountenances the method which transfers it to thedomain of religion. The question must be decided by the naturaliststhemselves according to the strict inductive method; that is, thesolution must be based on well ascertained facts, without resorting toconclusions deduced from general principles. "Exact research must showthat living organisms actually have overstepped the bounds definingtheir species, and not merely that they conceivably may have done so. "Hence it is absolutely necessary to procure the intermediary forms. This is the foundation on which Fleischmann builds and against which noopponent can prevail. Fleischmann first discusses the differencesbetween the classes of vertebrates; the mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. For if the differences of their bodily structurecould be shown to be one of degree and not radical, it could besupposed that the lines of demarcation which now delimitate the largertypes might some day vanish. A single illustration suffices forFleischmann's purpose, viz. , the plan of structure of the limbs of thedifferent classes of vertebrates. The four higher classes arecharacterized by a common underlying plan of limb structure, whilstfish have one peculiar to themselves. On the other hand it is aninevitable postulate of the doctrine of Descent that fish are theoriginal progenitors of all other vertebrates. Hence the five-jointlimbs of the latter must have developed from the fins of fish. Thisderivation was actually attempted but without success, as Fleischmannpoints out at considerable length. By means of citations taken from thewritings of Darwinian adherents, he illustrates the confusion whicheven now reigns among them on this matter. The evolution of theremaining vertebrates from the fish is therefore a wholly gratuitousassumption devoid of any foundation in fact. 

Fleischmann further discusses the "parade-horse" of the theory ofDescent. It has been the common belief, especially fostered by Haeckel, that the history of the Descent of our present horse lies before us inits complete integrity as pictured in the drawings of Marsh. HereFleischmann again proves at great length the insufficiency of actuallyavailable materials. Of special importance is his repeated demand thatnot only individual parts of the animals but the whole organism as wellshould be derived from the earlier forms. If, for instance, it bepossible to arrange horses and their tertiary kindred in an unbrokenline of descent according to the formation of their feet, whilst theother characteristics (teeth, skull-structure, etc. , ) do not admit ofarrangement in a corresponding series, the first line must besurrendered. 

Very similar to this is the case of the "family history of birds, "which as all know, has been traced back to reptiles. It is in thismatter that the famous Archaeopteryx plays an important part. Unfortunately, however, grave difficulties are again encountered inthis connection. This primitive form is a real bird according toZittel; and according to the same investigator as also according toMarsh, Dames, Vetter, Parker, Tuerbringen, Parlow and Mehnert, it isinadmissible to connect birds with a definite class of reptiles. Haeckel finds his way out of the difficulty by supplying hypotheticalforms which no one has ever seen, but which his imagination hasadmirably depicted as transitional forms. In so doing, however, heabandons the inductive method of natural science. 

It is impossible for us to treat at such length all the remainingsections of this important book. We may mention in passing thatFleischmann examines the "roots of the mammal stock, " and enters upon adetailed discussion of "the origin of lung-breathing vertebrates, " the"real phylo-genetic problem of the mollusks, " and "the origin of theechinodermata. " It is evident that he boldly takes up the mostimportant problems connected with the theory of Descent, and does notconfine himself to a one-sided discussion of individual points. As hedid not fear to examine thoroughly the famous, and as it hithertoappeared, invulnerable, "parade-horse, " so neither does he hesitate todemolish the other reputed proof for the doctrine of Descent, e. G. , thefresh-water snail of Steinheim, the remains of which Hilzendorf andNeumayr examined and were said to have arranged in lines of descentthat "would actually stagger one. " It is important to call especialattention to this because the adversaries of the book ignore it. Henext shows up the so-called "fundamental principle of biogenesis"according to which organisms are supposed to repeat during theirindividual development the forms of their progenitors (enunciated byFritz Mueller and Haeckel). Fleischmann points out the exceptions whichHaeckel attributes to "Cenogenesis, " (that is to falsification) andshows the disagreement among contemporary naturalists regarding thisfundamental principle. Even Haeckel's friend and pupil, O. Hertwigsounds the retreat. 

The 15th chapter deals with the "Collapse of Haeckel's Doctrine, " whichis revealed in the fact that "the practical possibility of ascertaininganything regarding the primitive history of the animal kingdom iscompletely exhausted and the hope of so doing forever frustrated. ""Instead of scientists having been able from year to year to produce anincreasing abundance of proof for the correctness of the doctrine ofDescent, the lack of proofs and the impossibility of procuring evidenceis to-day notorious. " In the last chapter Fleischmann finally attemptsto prove on logical principles the untenableness of the evolutionaryidea. 

He starts from the fact that philosophers use the word development todesignate a definite sequence of ideas, i. E. , in a logical order. "Metamorphosis, says Hegel, belongs to the Idea as such since itsvariation alone is development. Rational speculation must get rid ofsuch nebulous concepts as the evolution of the more highly developedanimal organisms from the less developed, etc. "

Naturalists use the word in a different sense. Instead of a sequence ofgrades of being they posit a sequence of transformations; instead of alogical sequence of ideas they posit a transforming and progressivedevelopment. Zoology constructs a system of specific and genericconcepts, "an animal kingdom with logical relations. " Our concepts arederived from natural objects, but in reality do not perfectlycorrespond to them. The phylogenetic school commits the capital mistakeof presenting a transformation which can be realized only in logicalconcepts, as an actually occurring process, and of confounding anabstract operation with concrete fact. "The logical transformation ofthe concept ape into the concept man is no genealogical process. " Themathematician may logically 'develop' the concept of a circle from thatof a polygon, but it by no means follows that the circle isphylo-genetically derived from the polygon. 

Because the concept of species is variable, the species themselves, according to Darwin, should be subject to a continual flux; whereas thereal cause of the variability which he observed lies in the discrepancybetween objective facts and their logical tabulation, in the narrownessof our concepts and in the lack of adequate means of expression. Hethus makes natural objects responsible for our logical limitations. 

With regard to organisms the Descent-school confounded the purelylogical signification of the word "related" with that of blood orfamily affinity. But surely when they speak of the relation of forms inthe crystal systems, they do not refer to genetic connection. To-daythis interchange of concepts is so general that one needs to exercisegreat care if one would avoid it. 

The theory which postulates the blood-relationship of individuals ofthe same species may be correct, but it is utterly incapable of proof, and the same is true in a greater degree when there is question ofindividuals of the same class but of different species. Since a directproof is impossible, an attempt was made to construct an indirect proofby a comparison of bodily-organs. But in so doing the Descenttheorizers had to relinquish scientific analysis altogether. 

In conclusion Fleischmann states that he does not mean to discard everyhypothesis of Descent. He simply gives warning against anover-estimation of the theory. In opposition to those who esteem it asthe highest achievement of science, he looks upon it as a necessaryevil. Its proper sphere is the laboratory of the man of science, andnot the thronging market-place. 

"The Descent hypothesis will meet the same fate (be cast aside), sinceits incompatibility with facts of ordinary observation is manifestingitself. At the time of its appearance in a new form, forty years ago, it exercised a beneficial influence on scientific progress and induceda great number of capable minds to devote themselves to the study ofanatomical, palaeontological and evolutionary problems. Meanwhile, however, viewed in the light of a constantly increasing wealth ofactual materials, the hypothesis has become antiquated and the laborsof its industrious advocates makes it obvious to unbiased critics, thatit is time to relegate it ad acta. "

 * * * * * * *

My own views agree with those of Fleischmann as presented above, exceptin regard to his last chapter. I must, of course, admit that hiscriticism has discredited the doctrine of Descent as a scientificallyestablished theory. Hence, as I have always asserted, it must beexcluded from the realm of exact science. No doubt people will comegradually to see that the theory involves a creed and therefore belongsto the domain of cosmic philosophy. All this I readily admit. 

Not so, however, as regards the concept of "development. " It seems tome to be incorrect to regard this as a logical concept only, even withreference to organisms. True, the whole zoological system is in realitynothing more than a logical abstraction. And in view of this fact onemust be on one's guard against confusing a logical transformation ofconcepts with a genealogical development. 

We must, however, not forget that we possess the wonderful analogy ofontogeny (individual development) and above all, the fact of mutationand of metagenesis. And even if we wish to avoid the error of Haeckeland others who find a necessary connection between ontogeny andphylogeny, nevertheless the analogy will still entitle us to picture toourselves the development of the whole range of living organisms. Sucha representation will, of course, have only a subjective value. 

No doubt, it is logically unjustifiable to argue from the variableconcept to the variability of the species. Still there is somethingreal in plants and animals which corresponds to our specific concepts. In some cases the corresponding reality may be so well defined that itis not difficult to form the concept accurately; whereas in other caseswhere the task is more difficult, the difficulty must be due to theobject. Under these circumstances we may safely conclude from the lackof definiteness in our concepts to a certain lack of rigid delimitationin the organic forms. 

This blending of certain forms suggests the idea of transformation, butdoes not furnish definite proof of it. Such proof can be had only bythe direct observation of a transformation. And no doubt in certaincases a transformation may occur. As regards animals, I may callattention, for instance, to the experiments made with butterflies byStandfuss, and as regards plants, to the experiments of Haberlandt, ofwhich I treated in Chapter III. The limits within which thesetransformations take place are indeed very narrow as are also thelimits of those indisputable varieties which naturally arise within anotherwise rigidly defined species. I am aware that the transformationof one species into another has not yet been effected, but theabove-mentioned attempts at transformation have neverthelessdemonstrated that certain organic forms when subjected to changedconditions of life, display certain mutations which clearly show thatvariability is to be attributed, not, certainly, to the specificconcepts, but to the corresponding reality. This observation andreflexion, joined with the fact that organisms form a progressiveseries from the simple to the more complex, and with the observedphenomena of individual development, lead me to regard the concept ofDescent as admissible, and in a certain sense, even probable. But Iagree with Fleischmann in saying that this is a mere belief, and thatall attempts to give it a higher scientific value by inductive proofhave signally failed. 

My standpoint, moreover, requires me to admit the validity of thehypothesis of Descent as an heuristic maxim of natural science. Ibelieve that we shall be justified in the future, as we were fortyyears ago, in directing our investigation in the direction of Descent, and I do not consider such investigation so utterly hopeless asFleischmann represents it. However, I entirely concur with him in theopinion that we are here concerned (and shall be for a long time tocome) with a mere hypothesis which belongs not in the market-place, noramong the world views of the multitude, but in the study of the man ofscience. 

Above all it must not be mixed up with religious questions. Whether thehypothesis will ever emerge from the study of the man of science as awell-attested law, is still an open question, incapable of immediatesolution. 

 * * * * * * *

It is of interest for us to inquire what reception Fleischmann'sprotest against the theory of Descent has been accorded by hisassociates. 

Fleischmann was formerly an advocate of the theory of Descent. He was apupil and assistant of Selenka, who was then at Erlangen (died inMuenster 1902). He had previously written a number of scientific worksfrom the standpoint of the Descent theory. In the year 1891, investigations regarding rodents led him to oppose that theory. Duringthe winter term of 1891-92 he gave evidence of this change in a publiclecture. Not until 1895 was there question of his appointment to thechair of zoology in Erlangen. In 1898 he published a Manual of Zoologybased on principles radically opposed to the doctrine of Descent. Thismanual irritated Haeckel so much that he issued one of his well-knownarticles, _Ascending and Descending Zoology_, in which, after hisusual manner, he casts suspicion on Fleischmann of having received hisappointment to the chair at Erlangen by becoming an anti-Darwinian inaccordance with a desire expressed at the diet of Bavaria. I am notaware that Haeckel has paid any attention to the work of Fleischmannwhich we have just reviewed. 

By its publication, however, the author disturbed a hornet's nest. Dispassionate, but still entirely adverse is Professor Plate's reviewin the "Biologisches Zentralblatt, " while the "Umschau" publishes twocriticisms, one by Professor von Wagner, the other by Dr. Reh, whichfor want of sense could not well be equalled. It was the former whofurnished material for our sixth chapter and who there displayed suchutter confusion of thought regarding the inductive method. The sameconfusion is apparent in his recent utterance in which he observes thatFleischmann's whole aim is to accumulate observational data, meanwhileavoiding speculation as far as possible. His criticism is replete withbitter personal epithets, e. G. , "reactionary, " "mental incompetency, ""dishonest mask of hypercritical exactness, " which manifest thewriter's inability to enter upon an objective discussion of thequestion. 

A still more reprehensible position is assumed by Dr. Reh, who censuresFleischmann for introducing to the general public the question ofDescent which belongs properly to the forum of science. He claims thatFleischmann, by so doing, forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing. Dr. Reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of censure forHaeckel's _Weltraetsel_ which was intended for a far wider circleof readers. He next appropriates Haeckel's suspicion regardingFleischmann which we noticed above, and then adds the entirely untrueassertion that the first half of Fleischmann's Manual, written beforehe took possession of the chair in Erlangen, is written in the spiritof Darwin, whereas the second half which appeared at a later date iswritten in the contrary spirit. He then takes individual points ofFleischmann's treatise out of their context in order to execute a cheapand nonsensical criticism of them. Haeckel has evidently been givinginstructions on the best manner of dealing with adversaries. And verydocile disciples they are who imitate his method even to the extent ofdefaming and abusing their scientific opponents. 

But is not this another plain indication of the decay of Darwinism? Ofcourse Haeckel recognized at the very beginning of his career that itwas necessary to support the theory by means of personal bitterness, forgeries and misrepresentations. But if the last surviving advocatesof Darwinism must needs have recourse to the same disreputable means, to what a low estate, indeed, has it fallen!

Let us hope that these last wild convulsions are really the signs ofapproaching dissolution. 

CHAPTER X. 

In order to judge of the present status of Darwinism it is of primaryimportance to note the position assumed by the few really eminentinvestigators, who as pupils of Haeckel still seem to have remainedtrue to him. Among these I reckon Oskar Hertwig, the well known Berlinanatomist. 

As early as 1899 in an address at the University on, _Die Lehre vomOrganismus und ihre Beziehung zur Sozialwissenschaft_, Hertwig gaveexpression to views which are very little in harmony with the doctrinesproceeding from Jena, and which are also put forth in his manual, _The Cell and the Tissue_. In that address we read (p. 8): "Withthe same right, with which, for the good of scientific progress, anenergetic protest has been raised against a certain mysticism whichattaches to the word Vitality, I beg to give warning against anopposite extreme which is but too apt to lead to onesided and unreal, and hence also, ultimately to false notions of the vital process, against an extreme which would see in the vital process nothing but achemico-physical and mechanical problem and thinks to arrive at truescientific knowledge only in so far as it succeeds in tracing backphenomena to the movements of repelling and attracting atoms and insubjecting them to mathematical calculation. "

With right does the physicist Mach, with reference to such views andtendencies, speak of a 'mechanical mythology in opposition to theanimistic mythology of the old religions' and considers both as"improper and fantastic exaggerations based on a one-sided judgment. ""My position on the question just stated becomes apparent from theconsideration that the living organism is not only a complex ofchemical materials and a bearer of physical forces, but also possessesa special organization, a structure, by means of which it is veryessentially differentiated from the inorganic world, and in virtue ofwhich it alone is designated as living. "

Here, then, the distinction between living and non-living nature isclearly and definitely expressed, and Hertwig expresses himself just asdefinitely when he says (p. 21): "Whereas, but a few decades ago ascientific materialistic conception of the world issuing from aonesided, unhistorical point of view, misjudged the significance of thehistoric religious and ethical forces in the development of mankind, achange has become apparent in this regard. "

To this gratifying testimony against materialism the distinguishednaturalist added an equally valuable testimony regarding Darwinism onthe occasion of the naturalists' convention in 1900. He there sketchedan excellent summary of the "Development of Biology in the NineteenthCentury, " in which he decidedly opposes the materialistic-mechanicalconception of life. In so doing he also touches upon Haeckel'scarbon-hypothesis, to which the latter still clings, and says: "Thatfrom the properties of carbon, combined with the properties of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. , in certain proportions albumen should result, is a process which in its essence is as incomprehensible as that aliving cell should arise from a certain organization of differentalbumina. " Then the speaker is inevitably led to speak of the doctrineof Descent and Darwinism. 

In the first place he declares definitely that ontogeny alone, i. E. , the development of the individual being, is "capable of a directscientific investigation. " On the other hand we move in the domain ofhypotheses in dealing with the further question: "How have the speciesof organisms living to-day originated in the course of the world'shistory?" This is a very valuable admission in view of Haeckel'sdogmatic assertion that the descent of man from the ape is a "certainhistorical fact. " Very moderate and pertinent are also the furtherwords of the speaker: "Of course, a philosophically trainedinvestigator will regard it as axiomatic that the organisms whichinhabit our earth to-day did not exist in their present form in earlierperiods of the earth and that they had to pass through a process ofdevelopment, beginning with the simplest forms. "

"But in the attempt to outline in detail the particular form in which aspecies of animals of our day existed in remote antiquity, we lose thesafe ground of experience. For out of the countless millions oforganisms, that lived in earlier periods of the earth, the duration ofwhich is measured by millions of years, only scanty skeleton remainshave by way of exception been preserved in a fossil state. From thesenaturally but a very imperfect and hypothetical representation can beformed of the soft bodies with which they were once clothed. And eventhen it remains forever doubtful whether the progeny of the prehistoriccreature, the scant remains of which we study, has not become entirelyextinct, so that it can in no way be regarded as the progenitor of anycreature living at present. " I should like to know wherein this differsradically from Fleischmann's contention in his "Descendenztheorie" (p. 10. ) For we find stated here what Fleischmann emphasizes so much, viz. , that with the problem of Descent we leave the domain of experience. Itis worthy of special note in this connection that Hertwig likewiseevidently regards as the sole really empirically and inductivelyserviceable proof of Descent, that which is drawn from palaeontology, from prehistoric animal and plant remains. He makes not the leastmention of the indirect proofs taken from ontogenetic development orcomparative anatomy, to which the Darwinians and advocates of Descentlove so much to appeal, because they feel that the real inductive proofis lacking and totally fails to sustain their position. Hertwig nextpoints out that the problem of Descent stirred scientific as well aslay circles twice during the past century. He then pays Lamarck andDarwin the necessary tribute, at which we cannot take offense since hewas reared in the Darwinian atmosphere of Jena. I also willingly admitthat Darwinism served science as a "powerful ferment, " even if I mustemphasize just as decidedly how harmful it was that this "ferment" wasintroduced into lay circles at an unseasonable time by the apostles ofmaterialism. For while it was very well adapted to bring about ineducated circles a fermentation which produced beneficial results, inuncritical lay-circles this ferment produced nothing but a corruptionof world-views. 

Hertwig then designates "Struggle for Existence, " Survival of theFittest, and Selection, as "very indefinite expressions. " "With toogeneral terms, one does not explain the individual case or producesonly the appearance of an explanation whereas in every case the truecausative relations remain in the dark. But it is the duty ofscientific investigation to establish for each observed effect theprevenient cause, or more correctly, since nothing results from asingle cause, to discover the various causes. "

"The origin of the world of organisms from natural causes, however, iscertainly an unusually complicated and difficult problem. It is just aslittle capable of being solved by a single magic formula as everydisease is of yielding to a panacea. By the very act of proclaiming theomnipotence of natural selection, Weismann found he was forced to theadmission that: "as a rule we cannot furnish the proof that a definiteadaptation has originated through natural selection, " in other words:We know nothing in reality of the complexity of causes which hasproduced the given phenomenon. So we may on the contrary, with Spencer, speak of the "Impotence of Natural Selection. ""

"In this scientific struggle with which the past century closed, itseems necessary to distinguish between the doctrine of evolution andthe theory of selection. They are based on entirely differentprinciples. For with Huxley we can say: "Even if the Darwinianhypothesis were blown away, the doctrine of Evolution would remainstanding where it stood. " In it we possess an acquisition of ourcentury which rests on facts, and which undoubtedly ranks amongst itsgreatest. "

This last sentence affirms exactly what I have repeatedly asserted: thedoctrine of Descent remains, Darwinism passes away. Hertwig then isdecidedly of opinion that Darwinism entirely fails in the individualcase because in its application the basis of experience vanishes. Indeed, according to him, phylogeny is not at all capable of directscientific investigation. These are all important admissions which onewould certainly have considered impossible twenty years ago; theyunequivocally indicate the decline of Darwinian views, and in a certainway also harmonize with Fleischmann's work. 

True, Hertwig still clings to the thought of Descent, but apparently nolonger as to a conclusion of natural science. This appears from theassertion: "Ontogeny alone is capable of a direct scientific (heevidently speaks of natural science) investigation, " and from the otherstatement that a _philosophically_ trained investigator will accept it(Descent) as axiomatic although it belongs to the domain of hypothesis. What else does this mean but that: We have no specific knowledge ofDescent but we believe in it. In short, this is not natural science butnatural philosophy; it forms no constituent part of our certainknowledge of nature but it is one aspect of our world-view. 

All the above-quoted assertions of Hertwig are calm and well-consideredand show a decided deviation from the Darwinian position. Above all weare pleased to note that he appropriates Spencer's phrase regarding the"Impotence of Natural Selection" and that in the citation from Huxleyhe at least admits the possibility that the Darwinian doctrine will be"wafted away. "

It is also proper to mention here the fact that in another placeHertwig no longer recognizes so fully the dogma set up by Fritz Muellerand Haeckel which is so closely bound up with Darwinism. I mean theso-called "biogenetic principle" according to which the individualorganism is supposed to repeat in its development the development ofthe race during the course of ages. 

In his book: "The Cell and the Tissue" (Die Zelle und die Gewebe, II. Jena 1898, p. 273) Hertwig says: "We must drop the expression:'repetition of forms of extinct ancestors' and employ instead:repetition of forms which accord with the laws of organic developmentand lead from the simple to the complex. We must lay special emphasison the point that in the embryonic forms even as in the developedanimal forms general laws of the development of the organizedbody-substance find expression. "

Any one can subscribe to these statements; in truth they containsomething totally different from the "biogenetic principle"; forHaeckel has really no interest in so general a truth, but is intentonly upon a proof of Descent. 

Hertwig continues: "In order to make our train of thought clear, let ustake the egg-cell. Since the development of every organism begins withit, the primitive condition is in no way recapitulated from the timewhen perhaps only single-celled amoebas existed on our planet. Foraccording to our theory the egg-cell, for instance, of a now extantmammal is no simple and indifferent, purposeless structure, as it isoften represented, (as according to Haeckel's "biogenetic principle" itwould necessarily be); we see in it, in fact, the extraordinarilycomplex end-product of a very long historic process of development, through which the organic substance has passed since that hypotheticalepoch of single-celled organisms. "

"If the eggs of a mammal now differ very essentially from those of areptile and of an amphibian because in their organization theyrepresent the beginnings only of mammals, even as these represent onlythe beginnings of reptiles and amphibians, by how much more must theydiffer from those hypothetical single-celled amoebas which could as yetshow no other characteristics than to reproduce amoebas of their ownkind. "

This is a view which has frequently been clearly expressed byanti-Darwinians: The egg-cells of the various animals are in themselvesfundamentally different and can therefore have nothing in common butsimilarity of structure. In opposition to Hertwig, Haeckel in hissuperficial way deduces from it an internal similarity as well. After afew polite bows before his old teacher, Haeckel, Hertwig thussummarizes his view: "Ontogenetic (that is, those stages in theindividual development) stages therefore give us only a greatly changedpicture of the phylogenetic (i. E. , genealogical) stages as they mayonce have existed in primitive ages, but do not correspond to them intheir actual content. " This is a very resigned position, very farremoved from Haeckel's certainty and orthodoxy. 

To sum up: O. Hertwig has become a serious heretic in mattersDarwinian. Will Haeckel, in his usual manner try to cast suspicion onHertwig also? For Haeckel himself says (Free Science and Free Doctrine, Stuttgart, 1878, p. 85): "Since I am not bound by fear to the BerlinTribunal of Science or by anxieties regarding the loss of influentialBerlin connections, as are most of my like-minded colleagues, I do nothesitate here as elsewhere to express my honest conviction, frankly andfreely, regardless of the anger which perhaps real or pretended privycouncillors in Berlin may feel upon hearing the unadorned truth. "

Verily, it is a matter of suspense to know whether his school will nowpour forth their wrath upon O. Hertwig, or whether finally thediscovery will not be made in Jena that Hertwig secretly possessedhimself of his position in Berlin, in the same manner as Fleischmannobtained his at Erlangen, viz. , by a promise of desertion fromDarwinism. 

CONCLUSION. 

We may conveniently summarize what we have said in the foregoingchapters in the following statement: The theory of Descent is almostuniversally recognized to-day by naturalists as a working hypothesis. Still, in spite of assertions to the contrary, no conclusive proof ofit has as yet been forthcoming. Nevertheless it cannot be denied thatthe theory provides us with an intelligible explanation of a series ofproblems and facts which cannot be so well explained on other grounds. 

On the other hand, Darwinism, i. E. , the theory of Natural Selection bymeans of the Struggle for Existence, is being pushed to the wall allalong the line. The bulk of naturalists no longer recognizes itsvalidity, and even those who have not yet entirely discarded it, are atleast forced to admit that the Darwinian explanation now possesses avery subordinate significance. 

In the place of Darwinian principles, new ideas are gradually winninggeneral acceptance, which, while they are in harmony with theprinciples of adaptation and use, (Lamarck) enunciated before the timeof Darwin, nevertheless attribute a far-reaching importance to _internalforces of development_. These new conceptions necessarily involvethe admission that _Evolution has not been a purely mechanicalprocess_. 

THE BOOK OF THE DAY

_Science and Christianity_

_By F. BETTEX_

_Translated from the German_

The author among other things says in the preface: I wish to make clearto my readers how little real science is hidden behind the fine phrasesand sounding words or the infidel, and how little he himself understandsof the material creation which he affirms to be the only one.... TheChristian and Biblical conception of the universe is more logical, moreharmonious, more in accordance with facts, therefore, more scientificthan all philosophies, all systems, materialistic and atheistic. Contents of the book:

 Chapter I. Progress Chapter II. Evolution and Modern Science Chapter III. Christians and Science Chapter IV. Science Chapter V. Materialism

One of the many favorable reviews: It is a view of much scope, and sofar as it attempts reconciliation between science and christianity, is eminently successful. There can be no doubt that at present, whenthere is so pronounced a disposition to follow every fad in science, especially if it opposes the Bible, such a book should have a widereading and is adapted to accomplish much good. 

_Price $1. 50_

GERMAN LITERARY BOARD, Burlington, Iowa